wnTP 224 Public Disclosure Authorized AIA u * S

wnTP 224WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 284 AIA u ' * S

Surveillance of Agricultural Priceand Trade PoliciesA Handbook for Uruguay

Alberto Valdes and Barry Schaefferin collaboration with Jorge Roldos and Gabriel Chiara

,.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS

No. 207 Narayan, Participatory Evaluation: Tools for Managing Change in Water and Sanitation

No. 208 Bindlish and Evenson, Evaluation of the Performance of T&V Extension in Kenya

No. 209 Keith, Property Tax: A Practical Manualfor Anglophone Africa

No. 210 Bradley and McNamara, editors, Living with Trees: Policiesfor Forestry Management in Zimbabwe

No. 211 Wiebers, Integrated Pest Management and Pesticide Regulation in Developing Asia

No. 212 Frederiksen, Berkoff, and Barber, Water Resources Management in Asia, Volume 1: Main Report

No. 213 Srivastava and Jaffee, Best Practicesfor Moving Seed Technology: New Approaches to Doing Business

No. 214 Bonfiglioli, Agro-pastoralism in Chad as a Strategyfor Survival: An Essay on the Relationshlip betweenAnthropology and Statistics

No. 215 Umali, Irrigation-Induced Salinity: A Growing Problemfor Development and the Environment

No. 216 Carr, Improving Cash Crops in Africa: Factors Influencing the Productivity of Cotton, Coffee, and Tea Grown bySmallholders

No. 217 Antholt, Getting Readyfor the Twenty-First Century: Technical Change and Institutional Modernization in Agriculture

No. 218 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Africa Region, July 1987 to December 1992

No. 219 Cercone, Alcohol-Related Problems as an Obstacle to the Development of Human Capital: Issues and Policy Options

No. 220 Kingsley, Ferguson, Bower, and Dice, Managing Urban Environmental Quality in Asia

No. 221 Srivastava, Tamboli, English, Lal, and Stewart, Conserving Soil Moisture and Fertility in the Warm Seasonally Dry Tropics

No. 222 Selvaratnam, Innovations in Higher Education: Singapore at the Competitive Edge

No. 223 Piotrow, Treiman, Rimon, Yun, and Lozare, Strategies for Family Planning Promotion

No. 224 Midgley, Urban Transport in Asia: An Operational Agenda for the 1990s

No. 225 Dia, A Governance Approach to Civil Service Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa

No. 226 Bindlish, Evenson, and Gbetibouo, Evaluation of T&V-Based Extension in Burkina Faso

No. 227 Cook, editor, Involuntary Resettlement in Africa: Selected Papers from a Conference on Environment andSettlement Issues in Africa

No. 228 Webster and Charap, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in St. Petersburg: A Survey of Firms

No. 229 Webster, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in Hungary: A Survey of Firms

No. 230 Webster and Swanson, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in the Former Czech and Slovak FederalRepublic: A Survey of Firms

No. 231 Eisa, Barghouti, Gillham, and Al-Saffy, Cotton Production Prospects for the Decade to 2005: A Global Overview

No. 232 Creightney, Transport and Economic Performance: A Survey of Developing Countries

No. 233 Frederiksen, Berkoff, and Barber, Principles and Practicesfor Dealing with Water Resources Issues

No. 234 Archondo-Callao and Faiz, Estimating Vehicle Operating Costs

No. 235 Claessens, Risk Management in Developing Countries

No. 236 Bennett and Goldberg, Providing Enterprise Development and Financial Services to Women: A Decade of BankExperience in Asia

No. 237 Webster, The Emergence of Private Sector Manufacturing in Poland: A Survey of Firms

No. 238 Heath, Land Rights in CBte d'lvoire: Survey and Prospectsfor Project Intervention

No. 239 Kirmani and Rangeley, International Inland Waters: Conceptsfor a More Active World Bank Role

No. 240 Ahmed, Renewable Energy Technologies: A Review of the Status and Costs of Selected Technologies

No. 241 Webster, Newly Privatized Russian Enterprises

No. 242 Barnes, Openshaw, Smith, and van der Plas, What Makes People Cook with Improved Biomass Stoves?A Comparative International Review of Stove Programs

No. 243 Menke and Fazzari, Improving Electric Power Utility Efficiency: Issues and Recommendations

No. 244 Liebenthal, Mathur, and Wade, Solar Energy: Lessonsfrom the Pacific Island Experience

(List continues on the inside back cover)

WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NUMBER 284

Surveillance of Agricultural Priceand Trade Policies

A Handbook for Uruguay

Alberto Valdes and Barry Schaefferin collaboration with Jorge Roldos and Gabriel Chiara

The World BankWashington, D.C.

Copyright (D 1995The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK

1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing August 1995

Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development com-munity with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accor-dance with the procedures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibili-ty for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available.

The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of theauthor(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations,or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank doesnot guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatso-ever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other informationshown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment onthe legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of itshould be sent to the Office of the Publisher at the address shown in the copyright notice above. TheWorld Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and,when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy por-tions for classroom use is granted through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Suite 910, 222Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, U.S.A.

The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index ofPublications, which contains an alphabetical title list (with full ordering information) and indexes of sub-jects, authors, and countries and regions. The latest edition is available free of charge from theDistribution Unit, Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433,U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'Iena, 75116 Paris, France.

ISSN: 0253-7494

Alberto Valdes is agriculture advisor in the Technical Department of the World Bank's Latin Americaand the Caribbean Regional Office. Barry Schaeffer was a research analyst in, and Jorge Roldos andGabriel Chiara were consultants to, the same department.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Valdes, Alberto, 1935-Surveillance of agricultural price and trade policies: a handbook for

Uruguay / Alberto Vald6s and Barry Schaeffer, in collaboration withJorge Roldos and Gabriel Chiara.

p. cm. - (World Bank technical paper; ISSN 0253-7494; 284)ISBN 0-8213-3306-21. Agricultural prices-Government policy-Uruguay-Statistics.

2. Farm produce-Uruguay-Statistics. 3. Produce trade-Uruguay-Statistics. I. Schaeffer, Barry, 1957- . II. Title.III. Series: World Bank technical paper; no. 284.HD1907.75.V35 1995338.1'8-dc2O 95-22283

CIP

Contents

FOREWORD ............................................................ v

ABSTRACT .......................................................... vii

PREFACE ........................................................... . ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENT .......................................................... xi

INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1

CHAPTER 1: PROTECTION INDICATORS DEFINED ....................................................... 3

Definition of Indicators ........................................................... 3Data Assembly ........................................................... 3Nominal Rate of Protection (NPR) ........................................................... 5Effective Protection Rate (EPR) ........................................................... 8Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) .......................................................... 12Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) .......................................................... 14

CHAPTER 2: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS ................................. 17

Overview .......................................................... 17NPRs and Import Tariffs .......................................................... 18Who Received the Hidden Income Transfer? .......................................................... 18Individual Commodities .......................................................... 26

APPENDIX: COMMODITY CHARTS AND PROTECTION INDICATORCALCULATION TABLES .......................................................... 37

.i.i

FOREWORD

Latin America and Caribbean countries are at different stages of a policy reform processinvolving their overall economies and their agriculture sector. Agricultural trade and price policyreform are emerging as particularly complex and controversial topics.

The Surveillance project, for which this Handbook was prepared, was undertaken by theAdvisory Group of the Technical Department in the Latin America and Caribbean Region tooffer a framework for the analysis and monitoring of agricultural price and trade policy reforms.Each Handbook presents a quantitative analysis of the structure of incentives for agriculturalactivities and measures income transfers as a result of government policies for the countryconcerned. Quantification, and the resulting transparency, can be an effective deterrent againstdiscriminatory treatment regarding agricultural pricing and trade.

Sri-ram AiyerDirectorTechnical DepartmentLatin America and the Caribbean Region

v

I

ABSTRACT

This is one of a series of handbooks which have arisen from a Surveillance project toevaluate agricultural price and trade interventions in eight Latin American countries for sevencommodities for the period 1984 to 1994. The countries included in this Surveillance project areArgentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay and Uruguay. Theaim of the project is to make transparent the effects of agricultural trade and price policies onagricultural incentives. The level and extent of protection and export taxation is often largelyunknown, due to policy instruments and administrative measures that are difficult to quantify.To achieve the goals of transparency and comparability across products and countries, a commonmethodology was applied to each country to calculate four policy indicators: Nominal ProtectionRate (NPR), Effective Protection Rate (EPR), Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA), and ProducerSubsidy Equivalent (PSE). This Handbook presents and discusses the results and methodologyfor Uruguay on beef, milk, sorghum, soybeans, sunflower, wheat and wool for 1987-1993.

vii

i

PREFACE

How level is the playing field for agriculture after the initiation of trade and pricereforms? Agricultural price interventions in Latin America were predominantly implementedusing restrictions such as discretionary import and export licenses, direct price regulations,burdensome customs clearance procedures, and fixed and variable tariffs. The level and extent ofprotection and export taxation -- the hidden income transfers -- was largely unknown, due to theuse of complex policy instruments. With the maze of overlapping effects it was virtuallyimpossible to ascertain the effect of these impacts across subsectors. An outgrowth of this lackof transparency within the framework of price incentives is insufficient political pressure toattain a fair playing field within the agricultural market. Like most countries in Latin America,Uruguay does not have a 'transparency institution' providing greater public awareness of the wayin which activities in agriculture and other sectors can sometimes receive preferential treatment.

Most countries in Latin America are beginning to embark on a unilateral process oftariffication with bound tariffs, eliminating quota restrictions and also removing export taxes.Uruguay began a bold trade reform program during the second half of the 1 970s. After abortingan exchange rate stabilization scheme in 1982 by allowing a large devaluation in the currency, anadjustment process began which has lasted for over a decade.

The Surveillance project addresses a major gap in the analysis of trade and price policyfor agriculture. To provide transparency, countries require a mechanism which enables vigorousscreening and monitoring of price interventions. Once reforms are undertaken what indicatorscan be used to analyze surveillance of price interventions? For this report a quantitativeassessment of trade and price policy interventions has been carried out involving sevencommodities for eight Latin American and Caribbean countries during 1984-1994. Thesecountries are Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay andUruguay. Four policy indicators, Nominal and Effective Rates of Protection (NPR and EPR),Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE) and the Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) were used. Toachieve comparability across products and countries, a common methodology and formatting ofthe data series was applied to calculate the four policy indicators. Gauged annually, theseindicators expose subsidies and taxes in specific commodity markets. It is proposed that suchsurveillance be institutionalized and undertaken periodically as a monitoring mechanism toassess agricultural trade and price reform.

The results for Uruguay are presented in Chapter 2.

Alberto ValdesAgricultural AdviserLatin American and theCaribbean Advisory Group

ix

I

I

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

We would like to thank our collaborators Jorge Roldos and Gabriel Chiara for theirsubstantial contribution to this document. Jorge Roldos and Gabriel Chiara were responsible forassembling the raw data series used in this document; for providing a number of backgroundcomputations; for supplying us with information on the market structure of each of theagricultural commodities covered in the study; and, for commenting on our interpretation of theresults derived from the study.

The authors are particularly grateful to Melanie Meyer for her excellent assistance in thevarious revisions of this report.

Alberto Valdds and Barry Schaeffer

xi

I

INTRODUCTION

The Surveillance Study seeks to provide a consistent framework and yardstick with whichto measure the progress of price and trade reforms. As a part of that study, this Handbook hasthe following goals:

* to explain each quantitative tool used to assess trade and price policy with respect to acommodity (Chapter 1); and

* to present the results along with supporting documentation for the calculation ofprotection indicators (Chapter 2 and the Appendix).

Beginning in 1987 and continuing through 1993, this project's goal is to assess historicalagricultural price policy (i.e., prior to reforms), and current agricultural price policy. Four policyindicator measures of assessment have been applied to several major importable and exportableagricultural commodities; they are:

Nominal Protection Rate (NPR);Effective Protection Rate (EPR);

Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE), andEffective Rate of Assistance (ERA).

Chapter I explains these policy indicators. Each is subject to limitations and is anapproximation. Using the four indicators together means that the NPRs and EPRs arecomplementary to the PSEs and ERAs. The first two are effective in measuring the structure ofincentives as affected by price interventions. The latter two are effective in quantifying thecombined effect of price and non-price policies on income transfers between producers and therest of the economy. Combined, the four provide insight into a sector's aims and incentives.

A tariff-equivalent approach based on direct border/domestic price comparison was usedto estimate the market price support component to these indicators. While we expect that tradeand price policy intervention explain most of the observed price wedge, one cannot rule out thatdomestic market structure in the particular activity will also influence the results. Thus, not allof the price wedge observed is policy induced.

The four indicators help readers to see the results in terms of a broad picture. However,depending on how the question is posed, different analysts can arrive at very different numbers(for the same product in a given year). Thus, it is necessary to provide detailed informationconcerning the background computations. The analysis of these indicators allows policymakersto examine various policy issues. For example, which activities help or hinder agricultural priceand trade policy? Are transfers price-based, or do they exist as direct income transfers? Arereforms already in place that reduce the level of protection? How much and how accurately do

I

the quantitative indicators reflect exogenous shocks, such as changes in border prices? Howuniform is the structure of incentives across various activities? Does the trade regime result insignificant anti-export bias?.

Below are examples, discussions and results directly related to Uruguay. For theinterested reader, a summary of the protection indicators appears in Tables 5 and 6 (at the end ofChapter 2).

The main results are shown on pages 17 andl 8, in figures la and lb, and tables 5, 6 and8. Figures la and lb illustrate income transfers. Beginning in 1990, beef, wool and to a lesserextent milk had sharp increases in negative transfers. The higher levels started in 1990, and havecontinued with the most recent estimates. Transfers to rice, barley and sunflower are smallcompared to those to wheat, a highly protected subsector, and the only commodity receivingpositive transfers.

2

CHAPTER 1

PROTECTION INDICATORS DEFINED

Definition of Indicators

In order to measure periodically the structure of incentives for various agricultural activities,and to produce a consistent quantitative assessment of income transfers between agriculture and therest of the economy, indicators must be comparable over time, across commodities, and acrosscountries. Further, they must be easy to measure and understand, and must accurately reflect theincentive structure of the underlying policy instrument(s).

Data Assembly

The first step is to examine and understand the data used to calculate the indicators. Areview of the characteristics of the indicators follows a discussion of the process by which the datawere assembled.

The Surveillance Project's analysis begins with a broad overview of a given commodity'smarketing chain in the country concerned, followed by information gathering. Is a commodityexportable or importable? How many steps exist in the chain? Is any significant processingrequired? A typical chain involves transport to processor - processing - transport to the wholesaler -wholesaler's activity - transport to port facility - lading and shipment. Once the marketing chainhas been delineated, each step of the chain can be analyzed with cost and price estimates.

The NPR, EPR, PSE and ERA all involve the comparison of a domestic price with itsborder equivalent. This is true for both inputs and outputs. The next logical step in the surveillanceprocess is to focus on pricing instruments using the marketing chain derived above as a sequentialseries of "price points."

Relevant domestic prices of both outputs and inputs need to be obtained before assemblingthe database to calculate protection rates. It is also necessary, in the case of inputs, to acquire thetechnological coefficients of converting input into output. Domestic prices should ideally beacquired at the fann level. In reality, however, most prices are based on those at the central market,warehouse or auction (outputs) or at retail (inputs). This information can be obtained from farmbudget data. Direct payments through subsidies, and such costs as taxes and payments to marketingboards should be accounted for at the farm level in addition to those prices paid and receiveddirectly.

After delivery of the commodity to the central market, transportation and marketing costsare an important consideration as are any necessary processing costs. Internal transport and relatedcosts can be substantial, and provide for a 'natural' rate of protection to producers of importables

3

and an implicit tax to the producers of exportables. Physical transformation of the raw product, i.e.,wheat ground into flour, soybeans crushed into oil and meal, and cotton ginned into seed and fiber,should also be taken into account. Thus, conversion factors must take into consideration suchprocesses. Moreover, price subsidies and taxes may exist in addition to the direct costs.

Transportation should also be considered a major cost unless the processing center/centralmarket is close to the port of entry/exit.

At the port of entry/exit in the marketing chain all tariffs, taxes, subsidies, port charges andother costs associated with either the importation or exportation of a commodity must be accountedfor. This stage in the marketing chain is the most difficult to examine because it is here that thegovernment (or other interested party) is most likely to intervene. Additionally, border prices of thecommodity and its inputs are identified at this stage. For example, the government may chargelarge user fees that are implicit tariffs if state trading is a factor. Border prices, when converted todomestic currency from world prices, reflect the opportunity cost to the economy of producing thecommodity. This focus on the use of opportunity cost as a benchmark against which trade andprice policy is assessed is the essence of the economic approach used in this study.

Many problems exist in selecting the world price benchmark. If there are grade and qualitydifferences between the internationally traded product and the local commodity, problems arisebecause one could be comparing dissimilar products. Thus, the estimate of protection may bemeasuring differences in the two products and not protection. An example would be white vs.paddy rice. Moreover, the world price itself can be misleading if the markets are thinly traded (forexample, white maize).

At this stage in the marketing chain a proper exchange rate should be identified. Thecriterion for selection in the Surveillance report was the exchange rate farmers/processors/exportersreceive for their product. In most cases it was the official exchange rate. However, existence ofmultiple exchange rates or some other form of indirect taxation using the exchange rate complicatesthe task of defining a valid rate.

The Surveillance Project did not include an adjustment for indirect effects of economywidepolicies in the real exchange rate.' Thus, all calculations of the four indicators, NPRs, PSEs, ERAs,and EPRs, are at the relevant nominal exchange rate.

A critical step before the calculation of the indicators is price adjustment. In determiningthe adjustment three decisive factors are taken into consideration. The first is whether thecommodity is an exportable or importable. The second is the place or point of competition betweenthe domestically produced commodity and its overseas counterpart. The third is the point in themarketing chain at which the two prices are to be compared.

I Maurice Schiff and Alberto Valdes, "The Political Economy of Agricultural Pricing," Economics in DevelopingCountries, vol. 4 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

4

For exportables, the point of competition is normally the port. Using the central farmmarketing point as the place of comparison, the costs of the marketing chain must be subtractedfrom the fo.b. border price to obtain the farm-level price. The net result is a border equivalentprice that can be meaningfully compared to the domestic price.

For importables, the point of competition is frequently the processor. Again using thecentral farm marketing point as the place of comparison, the marketing chain cost must be added tothe c.i.f. border price until the point of competition is reached. The costs are then subtracted fromthe central farm marketing point.

These adjustments provide an accurate comparison between the domestic price and itsefficiency benchmark. Below, an example of the calculation together with actual illustrations ofthese adjustments are given along with discussions of each indicator.

Nominal Rate of Protection (NPR)

In this study the Nominal Protection Rate is defined as the ratio of the prevailing domesticprice relative to the appropriate adjusted border price in the absence of intervention. Thus, ourNPR is an 'equivalent tariff' measure and does not necessarily coincide with the explicit tariff forthe commodity in question.

The formula for the NPR for commodity i is the following:

NPRi=- PPE

where pd is the domestic price, pw is the world price of commodity i, and Eo is the exchange rate.

WAhile this calculation is relatively simple, it is very important to select accurate prices forthe ratios, and it is essential to have a thorough understanding of the domestic mnarkets where theprices are formed.2

Once the NPR is calculated, the results can be interpreted. Values can range from positiveto negative and each has its own meaning regarding policy.

A positive NPR means the producer is receiving a higher price for the commodity than hewould without intervention, and the consumer is paying more for the product. Positiveprotection is frequently associated with importables.

A negative NPR signals that the producer is being discriminated against relative to theprevailing border prices.

2 See chapters 2, 3 and 4 in Isabelle Tsakok, Agricultural Price Policy. (Ithaca, NY: Comell University Press, 1990) for a usefulreference on the NPR, EPR and PSE.

5

A zero NPR suggests that the structure of protection is neutral, i.e., producers face domesticprices comparable to border prices.

The following NPR calculation will help illustrate the above (see Table 1). The commoditydepicted is the exportable beef.

Table 1 is the standardized format designed to approximate the marketing chain of acommodity. Section 1 in the table determines the correct exchange rate and border price. ForUruguay, everything will be expressed in dollars, and thus the exchange rate is 1. The second linein section 1 is the appropriate border price of the commodity. Using 1993 as an example, the FOBprice of a weighted average of boned and boneless beef is US$2,451.8. This represents theweighted average cost of 1 ton of beef purchased at the port in Uruguay.

The costs associated with exporting the commodity are then examined. These costs arereported in section 2. In the example, five costs are listed. The first is the port charges associatedwith exporting the product. In 1993, these costs totaled US$14.5 for each ton of beef exported.The second and third costs are related to the fees charged by the bank and trade association.Combined, these fees summed to US$68.6 per ton of beef. The fourth expense is a service chargethat totaled US$51.7 per ton of beef in 1993. Finally, the exporter's margin is accounted for, andthis expenditure for 1993 is US$73.6.

The next step is to examine the costs associated with the marketing chain. Sections 3, 4 and5 of table I account for these costs. Three costs and by-product income are reported for Uruguayanbeef: transportation costs from the port to the processing center, storage and freezing losses, and thesale of by-products (hides, bones, etc.). The estimate for transportation costs is based on an averageof 100 km from the processing center to the port. In 1993, these costs average US$2.7 per ton ofbeef. Storage and handling were estimated to cost approximately US$503.9, and the sale of by-products other than meat increased revenue per ton of beef. In 1993, this additional revenue totaledUS$394.0. Finally, in many cases after accounting for all the costs, a difference still exists betweenthe border equivalent and the domestic price. Market structure is the maili cause of the differencebetween the two prices. Therefore, to account for these differences, an adjustment is made insection 4. In 1993, the adjustment was US$320.0. It is important to note that with this adjustmentthe border equivalent price with intervention (section 5) will equal the domestic price reported insection 6.

In section 6 appropriate domestic prices are selected. In 1993, the domestic price wasUS$618.3. The NPR estimates appear in section 7. To calculate the NPR for 1993, the differencebetween the domestic and border equivalent price (US$618.3 - US$727.5 = -US$109.2) is dividedby the border equivalent price. The estimate for 1993 is -15.0%. Chapter 2 discusses the results.

6

TABLE 1Standardized Format

Nomtinal Rate of Protection

Coumnry: Unay Tye: Epontlle

Csomety: Bef Pknt o Conrxetit P_COr

1987 1 S8 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1. UNADJUSTED BOVCER PRtCE

Exchange t NUrS Per DoWtr 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

8Brder PIce (a) 2,340.7 1,851.3 1,974.6 1,820.1 2,307.0 2,40f.3 2,451.8

Borfd Price in Local Currency 2,340.7 1,851.3 1,974.6 1,820.1 2,307.0 2,405.3 24b51.8

2. 8O0RER ADJUSTMENTS

TmrifU&/S.WAdj*nut

Port Chages 113.8) 10.9) 111.7) i10.71 (13.61 (14.2) 14.5)

Baa nee l 0.5%) & Trede Agents (i.3%) (65.5i (51.8) (55.3) (51.0) (84.56 (67.3) (88.6)

Ser,ices (2.11%) (49.4) (39.)) (41.7) (38.4) (48.7) (50.8) (51.7)

St o ntlemardI'lo" Esportnr Coots (3.0%) (70.2) (55.5) (59.2) (54.6) (69.2) (72.2) (73.61

Border Fn Equivbnt twitt mtryntiranoni 2,141.7 1.694.0 lr806.7 1,865.4 2,110.9 2,200.9 2,243.4

Bonler Price Equivalnt wtthout intervention) 2,141.7 1.694.0 1,806.7 1,665.4 2,110.9 2,200.9 2,243.4

3. COSTS FROtM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESA LE MARKET)

Terif(/SubidieAdjustnontsTrmnwportion 100 Km (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7) (2.7)

Oth r

-3 Border Price Equivalent after ProFssing (with wttert.ionr 2,139.1 1,691.3 1,804.1 1,662.7 2,108.2 2.198.2 2,240.7

BHter Price Equivalent ater Pcsng withoutinte,vention( 2,139.1 1,691.3 1,804.1 1,662.7 2.108.2 2.198.2 2,240.7

4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKIET

Tarif)o,SubklslAdjustrnants tc) (176.6) (25.5) (208.8) 176.6 (390.6) (374.8) (320.0)

Noceaing Costs Storage & freezing losaes (3.0%) (327.2) (343.5) (350.9) (328.0) t413.1) t435.5) (503.9)

Marketing MarginsOther _ y-Products 260.9 247.3 277.2 233.7 407.7 386.0 394.0

Convaerson Frnm (ive to P r ton (bi 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9

Borde Price EquivJant before Proceesing (with intervent.on) 640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 599.4 614.4 618.3

Bordr Price Equivalent before Processing twithout intervention) 700.4 538.9 584.7 530.8 736.2 744.2 727.5

5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POiNT fFARF*) TO PROCESSOR

Tariff/Subed/Adjustm nts

TransportationOther _

Border Pie Equivaent at CoNction Point iwith intervention) 640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 699.4 614.4 618.3

Border Price Equivalent at Colection Point (witqyt imrvpntion) 700.4 538.9 584.7 530.8 736.2 744.2 727.5

6. DOMESTIC PhtCE BorderWhoesle

640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 599.4 614.4 618.3

CoAsciot Point (Farm) 640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 699.4 614.4 618.3

7. NPR BordrsWhoesae

-8.S% -1.6% -12.1% 11.3% -18.6% -17.4% -15.0%

Colection Point erom) -8.5% -1.6% -12.1% 11.3% -18.6% -17.4% .15.0%

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

e. B_d one* w d rge of n nd bones w. The weit wen a fllow: 8one 89.7% 96.1% 91.3% 59.7% 84.8% 88.0% 94.2%

BOnels 10.3% 3.9% 8.7% 40.3% 15.2% 11.1% 5.i%

b. Convrsion fctr for bonee beet is 34.75% nd for bod beef is 52%. A weightd aveg of bond and bons bef ws usd to dennrna the connernn feter.

c. Etinsel of - -ion dln to moat _fnt0.

Saleme S lwso c PSW. LATAD7 1W5i

Effective Protection Rate (EPR)

In most cases, trade policy extends beyond output prices and into the input markets. TheEffective Protection Rate (EPR) indicator accounts for these additional interventions. The EPRmeasures how trade barriers on a product and its tradable inputs jointly affect value-added in aparticular activity.

This indicator has the advantage of examining the resource allocation effect of a tariffstructure. Previous work has shown that the same tariff (or NPR) can imply different EffectiveRates of Protection, depending on the level of taxation on the imported inputs and on theirimportance in the production process. By including inputs, the EPR becomes a more encompassinginstrument and, at the same time, more difficult to calculate. Inputs are often subject to both tariffsand quantitative restrictions. Product quality and defining an appropriate border price for a directprice comparison can be a problem. This study considers the principal purchased inputs includingfertilizers, chemicals, seed, and the cost of operating farm machinery and equipment (tractors,combines, milking equipment, plows and fuel consumption).

Calculation of the EPR is very similar to that of the NPR. Instead of being a ratio of theoutput prices, as is the NPR, the EPR is a ratio of the value-added at domestic prices (intervention)to value-added at world prices (without intervention). Value-added is defined as the value of outputless input costs.

The formula for the EPR for commodity i is the following:

EPRi = VAf -VATE0VAWEO

where VA" and VAW are value-added at domestic and world prices, and E. is the appropriateexchange rate.

Interpretation of the EPR is similar to the NPR. For positive EPR1, the returns earnedthrough the activity with intervention are greater than those earned without intervention. Fornegative EPRs, the reverse is true. Finally, for EPRs equal to zero, the protection factor is neutraland the returns are the same.

Since EPRs are, in fact, NPRs which have been extended to include inputs, similar behaviorbetween the two indicators is expected under certain conditions. For example, if the inputs are asmall proportion of the value of output, calculating the EPR is of little value.

Although the EPR provides additional information, it also contains biases because of inputsubstitution possibilities. In practice, however, these biases tend to be ignored because elasticitiesof substitution are virtually impossible to obtain.

8

Again, an actual EPR calculation illustrates the above (see Table 2). The commoditydepicted is again the exportable beef.

Section 1 contains both the domestic and border equivalent price of 1 ton of exported beef.The domestic price for 1993 is US$618.3 and the border equivalent price is US$727.5. It isimportant to note how these two prices are derived. Referring back to table 1, the two prices can befound in section 5. Their ratio minus 1 is the NPR. In effect, the concept of EPR starts where thatof the NPR ends (the relationship between the domestic and border output price) and expands theNPR concept to include tradable input prices (both domestic and border).

The example incorporates four tradable direct inputs and four tradable indirect inputs intothe calculation (see section 2 and 3 of the table). The direct tradable inputs used are animal health,transport, diesel oil, and commercialization. Since each of these costs are a composite of severaldirectly related expenses (and there are too many expenses to list separately), total value and notprices are reported, and the technical coefficient is 1. An example will illustrate. Using animalhealth, there are 5 different types of products that are incorporated into this estimate. In 1993, thetotal cost of these products valued at their domestic prices is US$15.8 and valued at their borderprices is US$13.6. A similar format was used for the other three directly tradable inputs. The sumof the direct tradable inputs valued per ton of output at their domestic price is US$50.8 and at theborder price is US$45.7.

In section 3, the tradable indirect inputs take into account the cost of vehicles, the cost ofstructure and machinery repair, and depreciation. Section 3 follows the same format as section 2.Combined, section 2 and 3 will add up to the cost of the inputs in producing 1 ton of beef. Usingthe year 1993 as an illustration, to produce 1 ton of beef means an expenditure of US$9.7 (atdomestic prices) for the use of vehicles. The same input valued at border prices would costUS$7.2. The sum of the indirect tradable inputs valued at domestic prices is US$104.2 and atborder prices is US$85.9.

Section 4 tabulates value-added at both domestic and border equivalenj prices. Value-added at domestic prices is the domestic price of output per ton less the sum of the four directlytradable and four indirectly tradable inputs valued at their domestic price. Value-added at borderequivalent prices is the border equivalent price of the output (determined from NPR calculations)less the sum of the same inputs valued at border equivalent prices. For 1993, the value of 1 ton ofbeef at domestic prices is US$618.3 and US$725.5 at border equivalent prices. The sum of thecosts (tradable direct and indirect) valued at domestic prices is US$155.0 (US$50.8 + US$104.2).The same costs valued at border prices is US$131.6 (US$45.7 + US$85.9). Therefore, value-addedat domestic prices is US$463.2, and at border prices US$595.9.

Section 5 shows the calculations for the EPR. For 1993, the EPR is the difference betweenvalue-added at domestic and border prices (US$463.2 - US$595.9 = -US$132.7), divided by value-added at border prices. The EPR resulting from this calculation is -22.3%. Chapter 2 discusses theresults.

9

TABLE 2Standardized Format

Effective Rate of ProtectionCountry: Uruguay Type: ExportableCommodity: Beef Level: Farm

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 19931. OUTPUT

Domestic Price NUrS Per MT 840.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 599.4 614.4 618.3Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Value at Domestic Prices 640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 599.4 614.4 618.3

Border Price Equivalent NUr$ Per MT 700.4 538.9 584.7 530.8 710.7 744.2 727.5Quantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Value at Border Price Equivalent 700.4 538.9 584.7 530.8 710.7 744.2 727.5

2. TRADABLE DIRECT INPUTSAnimal Health Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Domestic Price Per MT 7.8 8.3 6.5 3.6 19.6 14.6 15.8Domestic Cost 7.8 8.3 6.5 3.6 19.6 14.6 15.8Border Price Eq. Price Per MT 6.0 6.3 4.9 2.7 15.7 12.2 13.6

- Border Price Eq. Cost 6.0 6.3 4.9 2.7 15.7 12.2 13.6

0 Transport Quantity (s) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Domestic Price Per MT 12.3 12.5 10.3 5.6 22.7 12.7 12.4Domestic Cost 12.3 12.5 10.3 5.6 22.7 12.7 12.4Border Price Eq. Price Per MT 9.5 9.7 8.0 4.5 18.2 10.2 9.9Border Price Eq. Cost 9.5 9.7 8.0 4.5 18.2 10.2 9.9

Diesel Oil Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Domestic Price Per MT 8.4 7.7 6.0 3.5 14.4 9.0 7.5Domestic Cost 8.4 7.7 6.0 3.5 14.4 9.0 7.5Border Price Eq. Price Psr MT 4.3 3.7 3.4 2.0 7.4 4.6 5.1Border Price Eq. Cost 4.3 3.7 3.4 2.0 7.4 4.8 5.1

Commercialization Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0Domestic Price Per MT 14.8 12.2 9.4 5.1 21.2 14.3 15.1Domestic Cost 14.8 12.2 9.4 5.1 21.2 14.3 15.1Border Price Eq. Price Per MT 15.5 11.8 10.0 4.4 25.4 16.5 17.1Border Price Eq. Cost . 15.5 11.8 10.0 4.4 25.4 16.5 17.1

Total Direct Inputs (Domestic Prices) 43.3 40.7 32.2 17.9 77.9 50.6 50.8Total Direct Inputs iBorder Price) 35.3 31.6 26.3 13.6 66.6 43.7 45.7

a. Due to the detailed nature of the data and the limitations of space, only cost estimates per MT are provided.

TABLE 2 (cont)Standardized Format

Effective Rate of Protection

Country: Uruguay Type: Exportable

Commodity: Beef Level: Farm1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

3. TRADABLE INDIRECT INPUTSVehicle Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Domestic Price Per MT 9.1 9.0 7.0 3.4 14.2 9.1 9.7

Domestic Cost 9.1 9.0 7.0 3.4 14.2 9.1 9.7

Border Price Eq. Price Per MT 6.6 6.6 5.2 2.5 10.6 6.8 7.2

Border Price Eq. Cost 6.6 6.6 5.2 2.5 10.6 6.8 7.2

Structures Repair Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


Domestic Cost 4.0 4.2 3.5 1.6 7.1 4.5 4.7

Border Price Eq. Price Per MT 3.2 3.3 3.0 1.4 6.4 4.0 4.3


Machinery Repair Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


Domestic Cost 16.6 16.5 12.8 6.2 25.8 16.6 17.7

BorderPriceEq.Price PerMT 12.1 12.1 9.5 4.6 19.2 12.4 13.1


Depreciation Quantity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Domestic Pnce Per MT 63.6 65.1 53.0 24.3 107.2 67.8 72.1

Domestic Cost 63.6 65.1 53.0 24.3 107.2 67.8 72.1

Border Price Eq. Pnce Per MT 49.2 49.8 43.6 20.3 91.1 67.6 61.3


Total Indirect Inputs (Domestic Pnces) 93.4 94.8 76.4 35.4 154.3 98.0 104.2

Total Indirect Inputs (Border Price) 71.2 71.8 61.3 28.8 127.3 80.8 85.9

4. VALUE ADDEDDirect Inputs Only At Domestic Prices 597.5 489.6 482.0 572.7 521.5 563.8 567.4

At International Prices 665.1 507.3 558.4 517.2 644.1 700.5 681.8

Direct & Indirect Inputs At Domestic Prices 504.0 394.9 405.6 537.2 367.2 465.8 463.2

At International Prices 594.0 435.5 497.1 488.4 516.8 619.8 595.9

5. EPR Tradable Inputs.. _15.1% -9.3% -18.4% 10.0% -28.9% -24.8% -22.3%

a. Due to the detailed nature of the data and the limitations of space, only cost estimates per MT are provided.

Source: Surveillance Prqoect, LA TAD, 1995

Producer Subsidy Equivalent (PSE)

Governments intervene in a variety of ways in an attempt to assist agricultural producers.Although price interventions represent an important form of assistance, non-price measures couldbe important as well. The PSE can be defined as compensation to farmers for the loss of incomeresulting from the removal of domestic agricultural policy measures at a given level of production.Specifically, it is the sum of net output market support, input subsidies, marketing/transport/storagesubsidies, deficiency payments, and non-price transfers (research, extension, irrigation).Expressed as a sum, the PSE is an absolute aggregate monetary figure and can be calculated bothfor individual commodities or as an overall sector PSE. However, to make the PSE comparableacross commodities and countries, the aggregate PSE should be expressed as a ratio. The PSE isthen a ratio of policy transfers compared to the total value of domestic production (valued atdomestic prices).

The formula for the PSE for commodity i is as follows:

((P- PwEo) Q,)+ _((pd -p Ej) TCi Q) + DPi+ NPTiPSEi pd Q

where pd and pw are the domestic and world price of commodity i, pd and pW are the domestic andworld prices of inputj for commodity i, TC is the technical coefficient of inputj for commodity i,Q is the total production of commodity i, DP and NPT are the deficiency payments and non-pricetransfers payable to producers of commodity i, and Eo is the exchange rate.

In addition to price interventions, this instrument can capture a variety of non-border typesof assistance to producers. Non-border transfers cover a range of expenditures, from agriculturalresearch and extension, public investment in irrigation, and credit subsidies, to broader benefits liketax concessions. The PSE herein covers only those public expenditures allocated to the specificcommodities being analyzed.4 As a measure of iso-income rather than a unit subsidy at a givenlevel of output, the PSE is a lump-sum budgetary substitute for both pricd transfers (as measured byEPR) and non-price transfers. The net income of farmers from transfers through the output andinput market remains unchanged. It is important to note that this definition differs from otherestimates because non-price transfers have not been included in the denominator. Our decision notto include non-price transfers is based on our opinion that farm income, as perceived by theagriculture sector and many government census departments, does not include governmentexpenditure on research and extension, and irrigation.

3 For a more detailed explanation of the PSE, see GATT, "Quantitative Measurement of Support: The PSE," Technical Papr87-1315 (Geneva, Switzerland: GATT), September 8, 1987.

4The coverage of the non-price transfers can differ amongst various studies. For a discussion on this see Tim Josling andStefan Tangerman, "Measuring Levels of Protection in Agriculture: A Survey of Approaches and Results" in Agriculture andGovernments in an Interdependent World: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of Agricultural Economists, edited byA. Maunders and A. Valdes (Brookfield, VT: Gower Publishing Co., 1990).

12

TABLE 3STANDARIZED FORMAT

PRODUCER SUBSIDY EQUIVALENT

Country: Uruguay Type: Exportable

Commodity: Beef Level: Farm

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Market Value of OutputOutput (Thousands of Tons) 720.1 655.3 439.2 668.9 682.8 764.1 780.9

Price Per Ton ($US) 640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 599.4 614.4 618.3

Total Market Value of Output (Thousands $US) 461.380 347,515 225,848 395,017 409,295 469,483 482,799

Assistance (Thousands $US):Market Price Support (42,974) (5,636) (30,994) 39,972 (93,374) (99,189) (85,323)

Marketing Board 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Input Policies (10,059) (8,524) (3,910) (1,858) (13,785) (12,225) (4,570)

Credit Assistance (150) 345 480 292 15,954 9,542 29,324

Research & Extension 518 607 516 1,990 2,055 1,789 1,927

Total Assistance (52,665) (13,208) (33,908) 40,396 (89,150) (100,083) (58,643)

Producer Subsidy Equivalent -11.4% -3.8% -15.0% 10.2% -21.8% -21.3% -12.1 %

Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD, 1995

Interpretation of the PSE is similar to the other indicators. Apositive PSE reflects that theproducer is receiving positive income transfers. A negative PSE means the producer is being taxed.Zero PSE implies a neutral policy. Unfortunately, the PSE reflects the costs of providingassistance (non-price interventions), and not the actual benefits received by farmers. Thus, the PSEwill be inflated by the difference between cost of the program and actual benefit received byproducers (the difference being the cost of administration), and the amount of inflation isdetermined by the government's efficiency in providing the benefits to the producers.

Table 3 illustrates a calculation of the PSE for Uruguayan beef. It has two parts. The topsection displays a calculation of the total market value at domestic prices. The lower section,Assistance, lists the cost per year of the various government transfers. For beef, this includesmarket support (tax), input policies, credit assistance, and research and extension. The results arelocated at the bottom of the table. For a numerical example, refer to the year 1993. Production ofbeef was 780,900 MT and the domestic price was US$618.3 per ton. Thus, the total market valueof beef in 1993 was US$482.8 million. Transfers included market price taxation of US$85.3million, input policies tax of US$4.6 million, credit assistance of US$29.3 million, and research andextension of US$1.9 million. The total of all the transfers divided by the total market value (atdomestic prices) of beef yields a PSE of -12.1%.

Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA)

The Effective Rate of Assistance (ERA) is conceptually close to the PSE and the EPR. It issimilar to the PSE in that it attempts to capture non-price as well as price assistance, but isdissimilar in that the ERA measures effects on value-added. The ERA is the difference indomestically priced aggregate value-added plus non-price transfers from marketing, transport andstorage subsidies, deficiency payments, and technical assistance (research, extension, irrigation)relative to aggregate international value-added prices.

The ERA can be defined as the percentage change in returns per unit of output to anactivity's value-adding factors due to the entire assistance structure:5

ERA j=((VAi VA EJ)Qj)+ DPi+ NPTiERA,- ~VA~EOQ,

where VAd and VAW are value-added per unit of output for commodity i at domestic and worldprices, Q is the total production of commodity i, DP and NPT are the deficiency payments and non-price transfers payable to producers of commodity i, and EB is the exchange rate.

The ERA represents the broadest indicator of protection used in the study. This means,however, that the data required for calculations are difficult to obtain and manipulate.

5 For a reference on the origin and concept of the ERA, see GATT, "Effective Rate of Assistance and Related Methods,"Technical Bulletin UR-89-0392 (Geneva, Switzerland: GATT), November 20, 1989.

14

Interpretation of the ERA is much the same as the other indicators of protection. A positiveERA indicates government intervention in favor of the producer. A negative ERA indicates thatthe producer is being penalized. A zero ERA implies that government interventions have littleeffect in either direction.

Table 4 uses the exportable beef as an example. Section I estimates output assistance.Total assistance for the ERA is measured using a monetary absolute. In this case, total output ismultiplied by the domestic price giving the total revenue with all intervention taken into account.Total output is multiplied by the border price equivalent giving the total revenue without taking anyintervention into account. Using the year 1993 as an example, total output is 780,900 tons whilethe domestic and border equivalent prices are US$618.3 and US$727.5, respectively.

In section 2, input assistance is estimated using the same methodology as output assistance.Cultivated area or output is multiplied by the appropriate cost per ton of output for a given input toobtain an estimate of total input cost. In the case of Uruguay, eight inputs were used in thecalculation: animal health, transport, vehicle, diesel oil, structure and machinery repair,commercialization, and depreciation. Some of these estimates were combined due to spacelimitations, thus, ten estimates of total individual input cost were calculated; five at domestic pricesand five at border equivalent prices. Presented in the first line of this section is the technicalcoefficient. However, since cost data are used the coefficient is 1. The input's cost per ton ofoutput is presented in the third line, and combined with total output yields an estimate of the totalcost of the input to produce the entire output for that year. Using the input animal health for 1993as an example, the domestic cost of the input for 1993 is US$15.8 and the same amount of inputvalued at border prices would be US$13.6. Multiplying each cost estimate by the total output (inthis case 780,900 tons) yields the total cost of the input at each set of prices. In the example, totalcost of animal health at domestic prices US$12.3 million and at border prices is US$10.6 million.

Section 3 illustrates non-price assistance. Data for this frequently comes from governmentbudget data and are aggregate totals allocated to a specific commodity. As a result, many absolutesare used. An example of this is Uruguay where two non-price programs representing transfers toproducers exist. The first is a credit assistance transfer. In 1993, this totaled US$29 million. Thesecond transfer comes from research and extension, which in 1993 was US$1.9 million.

The composite value-added calculation at both domestic and border equivalent prices isshown in Section 4. In 1993, aggregate value-added at domestic prices was US$393 million and atborder prices was US$465.3 million.

Section 5 shows the calculated ERA. In the above example, dividing US$393 million byUS$465.3 million and subtracting 1 yields an ERA for beef of -15.5% in 1993.

15

TABLE 4Standarized Format

Effective Rate of Assistance

Country: Ungay Type: ESpontabte

Commodity: BOO Level: Fwno

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1. OUTPUT ASSISTANCETotl lOutpt 000 Tona 720.1 665.3 439.2 68D.9 682.8 764.1 780.9

D o..t Prktt NU,r PF Ton 640.8 530.3 514.2 590.6 599.4 614.4 618.3

TotalOtPutV.eat 0oetttniP0eat 461,380.1 347,514.7 225,848.0 395,016.8 409,294.8 469.483.3 482,799.2

lntatotion FPri. NU1 Per Ton 700.4 538.9 594.7 530.8 710.7 744.2 727.5

TottOototut VtJt at ltantioem tl roe 504,354.4 353,151.0 256,842.1 355,044.9 485,236.0 5488.72.8 568,122.4

2. INPUT ASSISTANCETotl Cultivated Area 000 To. 720.1 665.3 439.2 668.9 982.8 764.1 780.9

Anm.et Ha aittt Ittoks ULe PeK_ 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

loputs's Total Uta 720.1 655.3 439.2 686.9 682.8 764.1 780.9

Dornetlct Prk Coot Per Too o Output 7.8 8.3 6.5 3.5 19.6 14.6 15.8

Inpute Total Valo I@ Doaneeti P00C 5598.3 5439.8 2874.5 2430.8 13391.4 11136.7 12348.1

lntwleoallolP0oe ComtPeoTon-o tot 6.0 6.3 4.9 2.7 15.7 12.2 13.6

Wanit Total VWl* Ifternational-P1iMc. 4330.4 4157.9 2172.6 1835.0 10708.4 9336.0 10608.7

Trnsport., VetlaD& Die Ol I nputb Ua Ptr 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Input's Total Uta 720.1 655.3 439.2 668.9 662.8 764.1 780.9

0o.'enaPt a Cot Pe Too Outpt 29.8 29.3 23.3 12.5 51.3 30.9 29.6

nputs Total Valua * Dortn Pri.e. 21485.3 19177,7 10240.8 9382.8 35001.1 23600.4 23104.8

lotetoatiotal Pn. Coot Par Ton of Output 20.4 20.1 18.6 9.0 36.1 21.8 22.2

Inputs Total ValueP loteroationa-l Pri- 14702.1 13170.7 7283.6 6030.3 24675.6 16627.8 17340.9

O5~ Stantunest &MU hinary Rpati InPutb UW Per 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Inputla Total Use 720.1 655.3 439.2 668.9 682.8 764.1 780.9

Domsatkc Prir. Coot P. Ton of Output 20.7 20.7 16.3 7.8 32.9 21.1 22.4

Inpota Total Va.I.. Domea.oIPi..s 14870.1 13536.3 7168.6 5199.8 22479.5 16098.2 17493.8

IntefmatiOnal P0ice Cost Pe, Ton of Otput 15.3 15.4 12.5 6.0 26.6 16.4 17.4

Input. Total Valu e I ,taa.at.onal Pli-an 11026.8 10072.0 5499.9 4003.1 17498.9 12525.7 13610.7

Cooaierbh.otiton Input's Uo Pabr 1. °1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Input.'s Total U. 720.1 655.3 439.2 668.9 682.8 764.1 780.9

Doamotic Prnce Coo P.a Ton foutput 14.8 12.2 9.4 5.1 21.2 14.3 15.1

Inputs Total Vale @ Do.ntic Prica. 10677.6 7970.8 4129.5 3437.5 14490.6 10905.2 11822.0

lnt-teilonal Pen. Cot Per Ton0 Output 15.5 11.8 10.0 4.4 25.4 16.5 17.1

Inp"'.TottValn.O Intnmationl1 P0.. 11175.2 7748.2 4387.7 2942.8 17311.3 12599.9 13383.8

Daprecition Input. U"0 Pe., 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Inputos Total Usa 720.1 655.3 439.2 868.9 682.8 764.1 780.9

Ooaaaesmi POn. Coot Pet To. of Oututn 63.6 65.1 53.0- 24.3 107.2 67.6 72.1

Input'. Total Valut @ Domestic Pri..s 45912.4 42641.7 23295.7 16222.7 73195.0 51797.6 56305.4

ottaf"tin,al Price Con Per Ton of Output 49.2 49.8 43.6 20.3 91.1 57.6 61.3

Input's Total Vat1-@ oIt-tional Pi... 35437.9 32636.3 19154.1 13549.3 62180.0 44011.0 47847.0

3. NON-PFPCE ASSITANCE

Dirent Pytnt. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Credit S1baidie, 1149.85 344.9 480.2 291.9 15,953.9 9,542.1 29,323.5

Tao Enemption. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Haoa.anch & Emtaf-oo 517.5 607.4 515.7 1,989.7 2,055.1 1,789.4 1,926.6

Othefr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4. VALUE ADDEDAtelettd Value Added (Domtic Ptat 363,304.2 259,700.6 179,134.9 361,624.7 266,746.2 367,276.8 392,975.4

Un.atiated Vain. Added tintenriottnal Pri..l 427,682.0 285,366.9 2186343.9 326,684.5 352,9586.5 473,572.3 465,331.3

5. ERA -15.1% 9.0% -18.0% 10.7% -23.5% -22.4% -15.5%


CHAPTER 2

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

Overview

A summary of the protection indicators for Uruguay is shown in Tables 5 and 6. For amore detailed account of the calculations for the NPR, EPR and PSE, see the standardizedworksheets in the Appendix.

Table 5 presents a composite annual weighted average of the four protection indicators.Beef, wool, rice, barley and milk are clear examples of exportable goods whereas wheat andsunflower are exported occasionally. However, for this study they where all treated as exportables.6

The weights are the total revenue of the commodity (valued at domestic prices) relative to theaggregate value of all commodities included in this study. Overall, the composite indicators arenegative with a slight trend towards higher taxation in the 1990s. Since Uruguay is a net exporterof agricultural goods, these results are consistent with expectations. Negative protection existsdespite indirect tax rebates on exports for most products.

Table 6 shows the protection estimates by commodity. In the last three years NPRs haveranged from a high of 21.1% (see wheat in 1991) to a low of -37.9% (see barley in 1991). TheNPRs have followed a pattern consistent with exportables. Moreover, for beef, wool and barleythelast three years have seen a decline in absolute value in protection protection estimates. The reasonbehind this movement in the indicators is higher indirect tax rebates were paid to producers. Ricealso experienced an increase in its tax rebate (beginning in 1991). Consequently, protection wentfrom negative to positive.

In general, inputs can influence the protection indicators (EPR, PSE and ERA) in two ways:first, the input market can be characterized by higher domestic prices relative to the border price.Higher domestic prices are the result of an import tariff on all tradable inputs. Second, the relativeshare of tradable inputs in total cost also affects effective protection. Table I of the appendixillustrates this relationship by commodity. For example, sunflower and barley have the highest costshares while beef has the lowest at 24.6%. Referring to table 6, the EPRs are generally lower thanthe NPRs. This indicates that producers face additional taxation through the input markets. Theadditional taxation is the result of the high cost of domestic petroleum products (although otherinputs made a slight contribution). This input is subject to high and variable tariffs on crude oilimports that are controlled by the state monopoly refinery. It is also worth noting that rice isespecially affected by the higher cost of oil since its production is machine intensive.

6The exception to this is wheat. In 1987 and 1992 it was treated as an import.17

Non-price transfers are available through two programs: credit assistance from the state-owned Banco de la Republica (BROU) and research and extension through Plan Apropecurario.For most commodities, credit assistance contributed insignificantly to the incomes of producers.This is seen by the small differences in the EPR and ERA. The major export commodities beef,wool and milk are examples. However, the one exception is rice. Since almost 90% of the cost ofgrowing rice is financed using credit, rice producers received almost 50% of the total transfer fromcredit assistance. This is reflected by a comparison of the annual EPRs and ERAs. In each year,the ERA is significantly greater than the EPR. This trend, however, ended in 1992 as the subsidyavailable from credit assistance was sharply reduced. Research and extension did not contributesignificantly to the incomes of producers as a whole.

The PSEs for the major export commodities beef, wool and milk largely followed theannual NPRs since non-price transfers do not meaningfully contribute to the PSE calculation. Forthe commodities where non-price transfers are substantial, i.e., rice and wheat, the PSEs are higherthan their respective NPRs. In addition, the absolute level of both rice and wheat PSEs are high(>20%) indicating that a substantial monetary payment would have to be made to compensateproducers for their loss of income if the subsidy programs were eliminated.

NPRs and Import Tariffs

Table 7 compares the NPR and export taxes for 1991 and 1992. Overall, a comparison ofthe annual NPR and export tax shows that the NPR is much lower than the export tax. Uruguaypractices a selective taxation scheme designed to encourage exportation of high valued-addedproducts like boneless beef and tops wool, and discourage exports of low value-added products likeboned beef (and live cattle) and fleeced wool. Export subsidies are available for the high value-added items whereas the low end products are taxed. After considering the explicit export subsidiesand export taxes that are available, in many cases the sub-sectors receive a net subsidy from thegovernment. This is shown in table 7. However, considerable negative protection still exists(shown in the NPRs). Much of it comes through market structure. For example, wool, milk andbarley producers all faced some degree of industry monopsony power from the buyers. As a result,a large difference between the explicit taxes and subsidies set for a particular commodity and itscorresponding protection estimate exists.

Who Received the Hidden Income Transfer?

The question remains as to which agricultural commodities were taxed through the traderegimes in place during the time period of the study? Previous measures on the EPR and PSEreported the transfer per unit of output. Here we show both the absolute monetary value of thetransfer for each commodity and the transfer per unit (see table below). Figures I a, l b and table 8show the total transfers for all commodities. Note that the y-axis of both figures Ia and lb are thesame so that the two graphs are directly comparable. Figure I a shows the main export commoditiesbeef, wool and milk. Figure lb shows the commodities sunflower, wheat and barley. Combined,these commodity groups account for over 90% of the transfers in most years. By comparing the

18

two graphs (la and 1 b) one can see the relative size differences that exist between the twocommodity groups. Both figures also show an increase in taxation (negative transfer) from thebeginning of the study to the early 1990s. During this period beef producers paid the highest sharefollowed by wool producers. At its peak in 1991 (see table 8), total transfers reached -US$217million. Of this total, beef producers paid US$89 million and wool producers contributed US$94million. By 1993, however, both groups were paying slightly less. For example, the beef sub-sector paid US$58 million and the wool sub-sector paid US$53 million. Figure lb, combined withtable 8 shows that wheat producers have benefited from the transfers. However, relative to theother commodities, the amount the wheat growers received overall is small. In 1993, for example,wheat growers received approximately US$2.7 million.

Table 8 also examines the specific programs through which the transfers have occurred.Until 1991, the majority of the transfers came from taxation within the pricing mechanism of eachcommodity. During its highest year, 1990, over US$198 million was transferred from the sevencommodities studied. This figure has decreased since then, and in 1993, US$163 million was paid.Other transfers included taxation through the input market which in 1993 was US$49 million.

Various monetary per MT measures by commodity are presented in the table on thefollowing page. The first line shows the domestic price per MT of the commodity. These figuresare included for comparative purposes. The second line is the most important. This row shows theactual transfer per MT of the commodity produced (in US dollars). When compared to thedomestic price, one can see how important, in monetary terms, the transfer is to the producer. Thethird line shows the PSE expressed as a percentage of production valued at domestic prices. Thisline is included for comparative purposes. Wool, for example, had an average domestic price perMT of US$2,072 for 1992-1993. The transfer paid per ton of wool was US$636; in this case, alarge tax is paid by the producers. Conversely, wheat producers received an average price ofUS$123 per MT. The total transfer per ton to producers as measured by the PSE calculation wasUS$4. See appendix tables 2c-8c for more details concerning the composition of the PSEs for allthe individual commodities in their local currencies.

1992-93 Average Price and PSE Measures(Current US Dollars)

Beef Wool Milk Rice Barley Wheat Sunflower

Domestic $616 $2,072 $166 $155 $108 $123 $173Price (MT) I

PSE Per -$103 -$636 $32 -$7 -$30 $4 -$35MTIIIII

PSE (%) -17% -31% -19% -4% 1 -29% 1 % -20%Note: PSE (9/6) are calculated from appendix tables 2c-8c, and are based on total transfers and value ofproduction.

The results cannot be duplicated using information provided in this table.

19

TABLE 5. Uruguayan Weighted Average Protection Indicators

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

COMPOSITE

0

Wt. Ave. NPR -3.7 -1.0 -8.0 -8.8 -18.4 -13.7 -13.0

Wt. Ave. EPR -16.4 -14.1 -20.7 -20.1 -37.5 -28.2 -21.1

Wt. Ave. PSE -8.0 -4.9 -13.3 -17.0 -26.5 -19.9 -16.6

Wt. Ave. ERA -13.9 -11.9 -18.5 -40.0 -65.5 -26.0 -27.1

Note: Since no importables were reported on, this table also summarizes exportables.


TABLE 6. Uruguay: Summary of Protection Indicatorsa

-------------- ------------ --- ------ EXPORTABLES ----------- ------ -------------

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

BeefbNPR -8.5 -1.6 -12.1 11.3 -18.6 -17.4 -15.0EPR -15.1 -9.3 -18.4 10.0 -28.9 -24.8 -22.3PSE -11.4 -3.8 -15.0 10.2 -21.8 -21.3 -12.1ERA -15.1 -9.0 -18.0 10.7 -23.8 -22.4 -15.5

Wool'

NPR 3.1 5.3 0.3 -24.0 -31.9 -19.5 -17.7EPRd -10.8 -3.0 -6.8 -40.6 -66.5 -44.0 -47.8PSE -4.1 0.8 -2.9 -37.4 -58.0 -31.5 -30.2ERA -10.8 -2.4 -5.9 -40.0 -65.5 -41.4 -45.9

MilkNPR -6.9 -14.6 -22.4 -30.4 -12.4 -8.6 -18.8EPR -36.4 -52.6 -50.8 -57.9 -39.6 -32.0 -46.5PSE -11.7 -20.2 -31.4 -45.9 -15.5 -13.6 -24.4ERA -33.9 -47.8 -48.3 -55.6 -33.9 -30.3 -41.8

RiceNPR 13.4 1.6 -1.2 -16.9 -5.0 4.2 10.2EPR -8.8 -17.5 -20.6 -38.7 -19.1 -24.7 -14.8PSE 10.1 -0.2 -4.2 -16.2 -5.2 -6.4 -2.2ERA 21.2 -5.3 -10.9 -23.5 -9.6 -21.8 -12.8

Barley'NPR -11.0 -32.3 -41.6 -38.8 -37.9 -23.7 -20.3EPR -36.1 -64.1 -72.5 -71.1 -74.8 -57.7 -67.6PSE -12.9 -48.5 -73.6 -66.0 -64.2 -29.9 -28.3ERA -29.8 -61.4 -70.6 -69.5 -71.0 -50.1 -63.6

WheatNPR 29.4 13.3 -0.2 31.2 21.1 -6.8 9.7EPR 48.7 15.4 -14.7 71.5 38.2 -26.1 2.5PSE 21.0 12.2 -1.6 21.6 13.0 -4.7 7.2ERA 57.2 27.5 -6.4 86.2 49.3 -12.5 11.5

SunflowerNPR -3.3 2.0 3.0 2.3 -3.9 -9.3 -11.6EPR -45.1 -21.8 -14.6 -13.1 -53.5 -74.8 -85.7PSE -10.2 -5.5 -3.6 1.1 -12.9 -17.7 -22.2ERA -31.5 -15.7 -9.7 -0.1 -45.2 -61.1 -77.6

a. Evaluation at the point of price determination. In moat cases, unless otherwise noted, it corresponds to the processingcanter Imills for grain, auction center for beef, etc.l-

b. Combination of bone and boneless meat.c. Combination of fleeced, washed and tops wool.d. Includes both wool and mea.ta. Combination of grain and malted barley.


21

Figure 1 a. Uruguayan Agricultural Exports. Income Transfers

Due to Price and Non-Price Intervention. 1987-1993.

150000- ,

w 100000- ,3c

RiNce

(0

0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wool

60-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IVZzo ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Beef

q- -50000- a')

H -150000- ,

1--200000-

-2500001987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1994.

Figure 1 b. Uruguayan Agricultural Exports. Income TransfersDue to Price and Non-Price Intervention. 1987-1993.

150000

100000- ,co)

50000- ,o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sunflower

.0 -~0H 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Wheat

fl-50000- Barley

tF -200000-,

-250000-A1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Source: Surveillance Project, LATAD, 1994.

TABLE 7. Comparison of NPRs with Tarifffor Uruguay

1991 1992

NPR Export Tax NPR Export Taxl%9) l%9) l%9) l%9)

Exportables

Beef -18.6 -0.4 -17.4 1.7

Wool -31.9 1.9 -19.5 0.3

Milk -12.4 -6.3 -8.6 -12.8

Rice -5.0 -1.0 4.2 -3.6

Barley -37.9 -0.3 -23.7 -2.5

Wheat 21.1 0.7 -6.8 -6.2

Sunflower -3.9 1.4 -9.3 1.4

Note: The export tax is net of any export subsidies. A negativetax is a net subsidy.


24

TABLE 8. Uruguay's Agricultural Income Transfers(Expressed In Current USS Thousands)

Total Assistance Across All Commoditles (By Program)

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Market Price Support (31,574) (15,021) (87,675) (109.732) (198,374) (160,946) (163,061)

Market Subsidies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Input Policies (40,988) (40,965) (41,454) (34,619) (54.276) (52,575) (49,186)

Credit Assistance 6,460 10.412 13,683 12,082 27,209 13,861 36,010

Research & Extenslon 1,656 2,590 2,353 4,874 7,799 7,354 7,447

Total Assistance (64,447) (42,984) (113,093) (127,395) (217,643) (192,306) (168,790)

Total Asslstancfi Across All Commodities (By Commodity)

Beef (52,665) (13,208) (33,908) 40,396 (89,150) (100,082) (58,643)

Wool (9,303) 2,743 (12,154) (99,175) (94,353) (52,255) (53,328)

Milk (12,541) (21,344) (44,602) (58,449) (23,736) (26,105) (46,005)

Rkce 5,402 (161) (4,299) (9,939) (5,951) (6,281) (2,335)

Barley (829) (6,364) (16,342) (14,045) (8,712) (4,762) (8,670)

Wheat 6,245 (4,305) (867) 14,015 5,495 (1,100) 2,985

Sunflower (756) (345) (922) (197) (1,235) (1,721) (2,793)

Total Assistance (64,447) (42,984) (113,093) (127,395) (217,643) (192,306) (168,790)

Individual Commodities

Beef

Second to wool, beef is one of the main agricultural export commodities of Uruguay.Figure 2a shows that in 1992 Uruguay exported 80,000 MT of beef. Most of the exports are thehigh value-added boneless beef (for a breakdown of exports, see the footnote in appendix table A-2a). The reason for this is that government policy is directed towards encouraging boneless beef byproviding for a 4.5% tax rebate on all exports of boneless beef, a 5% export tax on boned beef, andthe prohibition of exporting live cattle. As a result of these interventions, in 1994 over 94% of theexports were boneless beef.

As expected for an exportable, the negative NPR across the time period studied (except1990) demonstrate that this sector has been taxed. The results range from a low of -18.6% (1991)to a high of 11.3% (1990). The positive protection that existed in 1990 was caused by a particularcombination of factors. In 1988-89 Uruguay suffered a drought that lowered stocks of cattle. Thefollowing year, 1990, a sudden increase in demand from Brazil placed additional supply pressureon a depleted stock. Thus, in 1990, domestic prices climbed rapidly as demand for beef outstrippedavailable supply. By 1991, however, supply and demand returned to normal and the sub-sector wasagain taxed. This is reflected by the drop in NPR from 11.3% in 1990 to -18.6% estimated in 1991.

On average the EPR is 6 to 8 points below the NPR. The additional taxation is due todepreciation, vehicles, transportation and oil. Each of these higher domestic values is directlyattributable to the higher cost of crude oil relative to world prices.

The impact of the non-price transfer i.e., credit assistance, and research and extension issmall. In comparing the EPR and ERA for 1993, for example, the EPR estimate was -22.3%whereas adding non-price transfers to the domestic value-added increased the estimate to -15.5%(the estimate of the ERA). Along the same lines, comparing the NPR and the PSE for 1993 yieldssimilar results. The NPR estimate for 1993 is -15% whereas the PSE for the same year is -12.1%.The main difference between these two estimates for Uruguay is the non-price transfers.

Due to the size of the sector and its importance in trade, it is important to examine theabsolute value of the transfers. Figures Ia, 2c and appendix table A-2c show that taxation withinthe beef sub-sector has been increasing since the late 1980s. In 1993, for example, the beef sectorpaid US$58.6 million in transfers to the government and consumers. The year before the transferwas US$100.1 million.

Wool

Wool accounts for 19% of the country's total export income. Of total production,approximately 90% is exported, and the increase in production the past two decades has led to a

26

record stock of sheep of more than 25 million head in 1991. Figure 3a examines the export volumefrom 1987 to 1992. The most recent year reported, 1992, shows that approximately 25,000 MTwas exported. Three types of wool are reported on: fleeced, tops and washed. It is important todistinguish the different types of wool that are exported because different export markets demanddifferent types of fiber. For example, until 1991 the USSR was the largest purchaser of fleecedwool whereas washed wool is demanded by Germany and Italy and tops wool is demanded byChina and Hong Kong.

Similar to beef, the structure of interventions to some extent determines the mix that isexported. A 5% export tax is levied against fleece and washed wool while tops producers receiveda tax rebate that varies from 1.3% to 3.7%. The NPR ranges from 5.3% (1988) to -31.9% (1991)(see figure 3b). The year 1991 stands out as particularly low because export subsidies weresuspended for that year. Figure 3d compares domestic and border equivalent prices. Although thetwo prices move in parallel, in recent years the domestic price has fell further than the world price.This translates into more negative protection during the lower world price years. In addition, somemonopsony power may exist within the market, but the degree to which it exists is uncertain.

Animal health, depreciation and diesel oil are the three inputs that have the greatest impacttowards additional taxation of the producer. In particular, the last three years EPR estimates havebeen at least twice as negative as the corresponding NPRs. For example, in 1993 the NPR is-17.7%. However, when one accounts for the additional taxation through the input market, theestimate drops to -47.8% (EPR). These results indicate that the producer faces both substantialdirect taxation through the output markets and indirect taxation through the input markets.

Again similar to the beef market, the non-price transfers from credit assistance, and researchand extension do not have any meaningful impact on producers' incomes. This is demonstrated bythe close agreement between the EPRs and ERAs, and the NPRs and PSEs. The difference in thecorresponding indicators are the non-price transfers.

Milk

After achieving self-sufficiency in the early 1970s, milk production has grown steadily withthe orientation towards external markets. The industry went from exporting 3% of total sales in1978 to 40% in 1988. This process was initially led by the cooperative firm CONAPROLE, but inrecent years the cooperative lost its monopoly power as several smaller private firms increasedmarket share.

This sector is one of the few in which the government still intervenes in the determinationof a key price: the price of pasteurized milk to consumers. Thus, two prices exist within the marketfor milk. The first is the "quota price" that is paid for milk used for household consumption. Thisprice is higher than the industry price or market price. The second is the "industry" or free marketprice. Producers are paid a weighted average of the two prices for their production.

27

The government establishes a list of indirect tax rebates for the different products exported.These rebates are in addition to the above market "quota" price the farmers receive for milkproduced for domestic consumption. However, the NPRs are negative for the entire period of thestudy. Thus, the domestic price (weighted average of the quota and industry prices) is below theworld prices. This is presumably due to: first, the "quota" regulation and second, the monopsonypower the cooperative CONAPROLE exerts over the domestic price.

The inputs animal health, nutrition and oil have higher domestic prices when compared tothe international values. In addition, they represent a large cost share of total output value.Combined these two factors cause the EPRs to be significantly lower than their correspondingNPRs. For exarnple, in 1993, the NPR for milk is -18.8% and the EPR is -46.5%. This drop in theestimate means producers face considerable taxation through the input market.

In terms of non-price transfers, the milk industry is very similar to both beef and wool. Ineach case, the transfers from credit assistance, and research and extension had very little impact. Inmost years, the EPRs and ERAs show very little difference between them.

Rice

Rice is one of the most important crops -- in terms of both domestic consumption andexport value -- in Uruguay. During the period of the study, 84% of the crop was exported,providing the country with 6% of its total export revenue. Exports are highly concentrated towardsthe Brazilian market.

One interesting characteristic of the rice market is the relatively high concentration at theindustrial level. This combined with the fact many producers are shareholders of the processingmills, has created a situation in which there is explicit vertical integration between industry andproducers. NPRs fell from 13.4% in 1987 to -16.9% in 1990. However, in the following years theestimates have increased to the most recent estimate of 10.2%. Contributing to the fall during thefirst phase of the study was the diminishing tax rebate the producers received. In 1987 the rebatewas US$25 per MT. By 1990 the rebate was eliminated. However, beginning in 1991 the rebatewas re-instituted, but at a much lower level. In addition, the existence of vertical integration servesas a price buffer to changes in world price. For example, in 1993 the world price dropped 10.5%.Domestic price, hlowever, only fell 5.5%. It is apparent that industry absorbed some of the drop inprice rather than pass it on to producers.

EPRs are substantially lower than the NPRs. In the most recent year, 1993, the NPR is10.2%. Accounting for cost differences in the input market lowers the protection estimate to-14.8%. A similar relationship holds for the other years. The main disparities occur in vehicle andtransportation where domestic cost is considerably higher than international costs. Thesedistortions between domestic and border prices are due, indirectly, to the high internal cost ofdomestic diesel oil.

28

Unlike previously examined commodities, rice producers have greatly benefited from non-price transfers, particularly credit assistance. Rice production is very capital and labor intensive,and over 90% of the cost is financed. Since most of the cost is financed at below market rates, thisrepresents a large positive transfer into the sector. On a comparative basis, in 1990 the EPR was -38.7%. Adding the non-price transfers (mainly credit assistance) cuts the negative protectionalmost in half since the ERA estimate is -23.5%. Referring to appendix table A-Sc, the absolutemonetary transfer at the peak of this program (1990) was US$7.3 million. From 1991 on, the sizeof the credit assistance program was sharply reduced as the Central Bank moved the rates chargedto borrowers closer to world capital market rates. As of 1993, the transfer has fallen to justUS$78,000.

Barley

The growth in production of barley has corresponded with the growth of the brewingindustry in Brazil. In fact, 95% of total production is exported. Brazil is the main purchaser. Sincethe beginning, strong links between large brewing and malting firms, and producers have existed.Contractual arrangements exist where the buyers supply seeds and technology to producers inexchange for the right to purchase the output.

Government interventions are limited to small tax rebates on exports, and a 2.5% tax for theNational Fund for Silos. In addition, the price of the domestic product is set well in advance ofharvest, and usually is close to US$105 per MT. This figure is well below the international price,but does riot account for implicit financial and insurance components that are provided by the largebuyers. In addition, it is possible that the buyers are exercising some monopsonistic power overprices. Thus, the domestic prices over the period of the study are well-below international levels.The result is negative protection, ranging from -11% to -41.6%, during the period of the study.

As with the other commodities, the high domestic cost of diesel oil is an additional tax onproducers. For example, in the most recent year examined, the addition of inputs loweredprotection from -20.3% (NPR) to -67.6% (EPR). Other years exhibit a similar pattern.

Credit assistance, and research and extension have little impact. Thus, the EPRs and ERAs,and the NPRs and PSEs, are in close agreement.

Wheat

Wheat is a very important commodity in terms of domestic consumption. The governmenthas promoted self-sufficiency. As a result, during highly productive years the surplus is exported,and during periods of low production, the shortage is imported. Therefore, the commodity is notclearly classified as an export or import item.

To accomplish the goal of self-sufficiency, the government has intervened in the wheatmarket more than any other commodity. To support its objective, the government instituted a

29

"minimum export price," and export subsidies. Thus, any mill that wants to import wheat has todemonstrate at a public hearing that no domestic producer is willing to sell it at the "minimumexport price." The result of these protectionist policies is that wheat is the only commodityreported on in this study Phat has consistently had positive protection. Protection has ranged from ahigh at 31.2% (1987) to a low of -6.8% (1990). The most recent estimate, 1993, shows modestprotection at 9.7%.

As with the other commodities, the taxation through the input market lowers the positivetransfer to producers. Most of the tax is either directly or indirectly related to the high cost of fuel.In 1993, for example, the NPR is 9.7%. Accounting for inputs lowers the protection estimate to2.5%.

Next to rice producers, wheat producers were the largest benefactors of non-priceassistance. This is demonstrated through the difference between the EPRs and ERAs. For mostyears the ERA estimate of protection is approximately 1O points above the EPR. In absolutemonetary terms, the credit transfer peaked in 1989 when US$2.2 million was transferred toproducers. Beginning in 1991, however, this assistance program was greatly reduced as loan ratesto producers climbed towards market rates.

Sunflower

The sunflower growers play a minor role in the agricultural sector, and the crop is mainlygrown to supply the domestic oil industry. Most of it is grown as a secondary crop for wheatproducers using few technological inputs. Moreover, very little coordination exists betweengrowers and industry.

Although the crop is protected by a tariff whose current level is 25%, NPRs are generallynear zero or negative. For the most recent year, 1993, the NPR is -11.6%. The only apparentreason that the crop is grown with such low domestic prices is that it is still profitable to grow as asecondary crop for wheat producers.

Similar to the other commodities, diesel oil is the major contributor to increased negativeprotection. This is evidence by the large drop in protection caused by the addition of inputs.

Credit has not been utilized very much in the growing of this crop. However, in recentyears expenditures on research and extension have increased and are now the predominant non-price transfer. However, at its peak of US$271,000 in 1991, the absolute value of the transfer issmall compared with some of the major export crops like beef, wool and milk.

30

Figure 2a. Import/Exports of Beef Figure 2b. Protection Indicators for

In Uruguay Beef in Uruguay

180~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

S Imports v140 . -

Figurer 2cBe0rdcrsFgre2.Uuay-8re

12&

I- m E O-

00-4D

20.

0 ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~1987 1968 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1987 ~~~1989 1991

So4aroe: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o F#O Trf.oo* va*ua yepdaos.rk xrq tR

Sowcs: FAO rranoloook vPris yeam. tSource: Suvnec Pre/ct. LATAO. IQ99

Figure 2c. Beef Producers Figuro 2d. Urugauy's Border

Income Transfers In Uruguay Equivalent and Domestic Beef Prices750'

0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Border Equivalent

-400000- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~550.

-500000-1 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

-600000-' 06 - No4a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~td: gml pIceS" rAm.m e~t point at ~cmpellfln. Dcdv Equiwlent Prie

1987'1968'1969 1990'1991'1992 190 ~~~~~~~~~~~Is %ml Mie doeSlfC price WOWl be dlhiOiuI kihtwew.ic.

SoLrce: SLUurvearc8 PmViSt. LATAO. 1 W4. 8woi,G SwI*SmA Prioect. LATAD, 1994

Figure 3a. Import/Exports of Wool Figure 3b. Protection Indicators forIn Uruguay Wool in Uruguay

5000so_ 1

45000-1 l~~~~mporta

40000-m-

s Sowse: S e Prtect, LATADrt

do $000-0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-0

30000

25000

20000 -0

o 15000

10000

50004

0- 1 1 987 18 19 989 1 990 1 1991 1992 1993

0Source: Suvillwce Project, LATAD, I M. SoWce: Srewio" Pr c LATAD, h199

k.)

Figure 3c. Wool Producer's Figure 3d. Urugauy's BorderIncome Transfers in Uruguay Equivalent and Domestic Wool Prices

4000-

-iooooo- Cr- lkkft ED 3000- ~~~~~~~~~~~Border Equivalentl

-a -260000 gow~~~~~~~~ Dmeli

(O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(

15000

1 987 1 906106 I9 100 1 991 1902 1903 Nab: BOM p- Mmewed at point of eunpedlan. Borde EiWerd RIceIs %"Me to dama.ed prm woLdd be v,iUtaa bni5rntma.

asoics: SurvuUurcu Po mcw LATAD. I INK aouewe:mwm .J1VA1wP6L*ADA.619"4

Figure 4a. Import/Exports of Milk Figure 4b. Protection Indicators for

In Uruguay Milk in Uruguay

30000- 0

0-

._ool FNii-y= f

25000- Imports-I0

Expors .. ._

Cg 20000,

E

-t 10000

5000 ER

1#1-1987 19

988 1989 1990 199 199t 1993

1987 1 989 19

SOUrC.: FAO Trade3oak, Yarious years. Source: SurvuiNnace ProjeCt LATAD, 1904

Figure 4c. Milk Producer's Figure 4d. Urugauy's Border

Income Transfers in Uruguay Equivalent and Domestic Milk Prices200-

190-

0- Enenwm~~~~~~~- 0

E3 CDmI 170~ Border Equivalent

0,

140-

-160000., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~130

120

I10 198169 1991 19;93

1967 1968 1860 1860 1991 199~~~~~ 1886 Nob: SaSi prices meawed at point of comp.Uonm. Bma.f EquhAient ftlm

1 907 1 988 1 989 1 9W I M 1 992 1 993 ~~~~~~~is WiaI%i dameusk price wosid be vAUwuI inteviention.

Sauce: Suveimnc Pmnect LATAD. 164, J towce: SawMm.w Project. LATAO. 1 984

Figure Sa. Import/Exports of Rice Figure 5b. Protection Indicators forIn Uruguay Rice in Uruguay

S50000I. 3-0

0, __ _

Figure Sc. Rice Producer's Figure 5d. Urugauy's BorderIncome Transfers in Uruguay Equivalent and Domestic Rico Prices

2SO

240

1 00000

-~~~~-D50000- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~00 0013110

gowce: FAO Trwebook, Vargaw year& S~~~~~~a.: o=e.ps murinednc aml pcbt LAAO 'ID"Uo.8d Esv.n r

Sawcs: SFiguI~c roec LAD Rice~ Producer's Figure 5cl.LA. U1u90 'sBode

Figure 6a. Import/Exports of Barley Figure 6b. Protecton Indicators for

In Uruguay Barley in Uruguay

"O1987 1989t 1SS

I'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~E

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-0

20000-

10000-

a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1987 1988o 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Senc FAO Tradeboe, varios yea. SoMx: SuvrdiNIAe Proect LATAD, IO"

LA,u .

Figure 6c. Barley Producer's Flgure 6d. Urugauy's Border

Income Transfers in Uruguay Equlvalent and Domestic Barley Prices

Iga1.0

Li 160-~~~~~~Ei T

cUSLew '[ Boder Eqwvak.nf

-10000-1 m 2 W]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0

riom ISO-~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 IS * 19110

_21DOW 0 pfto&400 140.~~~~~~~~~~~b U3~ mmccpte csdbe~1m IOuiIn

So,oz SSIIWEU Pbct~ LATA~ 1964 e.: aww~ i'iwgu,s~ii~to

Figure 7a. Import/Exports of Wheat Figure 7c. Wheat ProducersIn Uruguay Income Transfers in Uruguay

Imp~

08~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fimports 7hO.einIdcaosfrFgr d.Uu sBre

01~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~300

0-1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 199M 1993

Source: FAD Tradeboo*. varisa YOSM Satrc: Szvlaname ProIsc1 LATAD. 19WC

Figure 7b. Protection Indicators for Figure 7d. Urugauy's Border

Wheat in Uruguay Equivalent and Domestic Wheat Prices140,

130.

XL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L.

U1-

-20-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-40 10idii9716

1997 19068 1i6 199 199I6;1 1992 1 9'" Nob:. Dog prime nomwed at pOb @6 CMnpeUML 5mdwE*V Gsd@6n Fda

Ssomug: F,I ko i~b LATAD. 14" bus: a.wUuw.o PtPJm. SAlAD. 134.

LE

US* ThousandsVolume (Metric Tons)

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ----t tt | --- -fWW t

X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~" .............. ...i. ; f. s.......$USgPe _ P ercen

o ! . X.l r =4 - 3

.0~~~~~~~~~

| t _ c c

a I_ -j-osgga~0 .

w i 0

! s~~~~US Per MT FOB PerGent

ii S. C.LjXi '0

~1I

I

I

APPENDIX

COMMODITY CHARTS AND PROTECTION INDICATOR CALCULATIONTABLES

The appendix presents standardized tables which provide detailed information on thecalculation of the protection indicators for each commodity included in the study. The processeddata used in the tables are based on the raw data series provided by the collaborators. Please notethat the figures presented in the tables are rounded and that replicating the results using the tablesmay yield slightly different numbers due to such rounding. Throughout the Handbook, numbersappearing in parentheses denote negative values.

39

I

I

TABLE A-11992-93 AVERAGE INPUT SHARES AND COST

STRUCTURE FOR URUGUAY

POmA2/LES

SWo Wool Mk 1190*Ste WleASUd6W

Ifxpreseeein Am'cuV of Output VMWe

AnimalH"Ith 2.5% 29.1% 7.S%Transoart 2.0% 0.3% 6.3% 21.3% 16.0% 3.0% 2.0%Oml"ON 1.3% 2.9% 3.1% 5.2% 5.7% 2.0%Commernealaun 2.4% 4.2% 16.1% 24.6% 4.3% 13.0%Veoiis 1.S% 2.9% *.6%SwUcht epolr 0.6% 1.1% 1.5%McwYfk er 2.S% 0.5% 3.2% 2.0% 13.2% 20.6%Oereon 11.4% 13.2% 14.6% 7.7% 3.7%4 10.7% 1s.11%Arno NuO 0.6%FOreg CrOpU 10.7%MIkiwn" mxditur 0.4%Seed 6.5% 10.5% 7.6% 23.7%Fertlier S4A% 12.2% 10.1%

3.31 1.0% 0.6% 1.2%Hired Sevlc. 6.6%

Tolt Coot 24.6% 59.% 68.3% 07.0% 75.3% 56.3% 33.6%

Returns to Land.LabOr & COptd 75.4% 40.2% 41.7% 33.0% 24.7% 41.7% 6.3%

ffimd AR tNmmo US. DOe_t

Output PriceP Ton 6616 42,073 4167 *156 1103 *123 $17n

Cost PrTon ofOutput 152 *1.240 *37 *104 *S1 t#72 6162

Returris to Lind.Labcr&CaulleIPeTon $44 S8333 $70 s1S *27 $51 o11

Note: Ougr dlmtlceon of coot wee iy cotuvceed for u" in aeLm i ft Ipe ad dothe Gov hef d tr_cemoenunt. Hc, cont tm do ro Inude ac ad to the uee rd ad enzm.


41

TABLE A-2aStanardized Format

Nominad Rate of ProtectionCz_f: ~ ~ ~~(MIm rT"p: E~.a2c -v _~~~~b4 tsa 2 C... ft...

2967 1 98 20W 39 2662 292 2663

2. UNAD.USTED 9WEI I49C9

E.d_ PA" t2 PM Dow I.0 t.0 2,0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0

tte .. 2.2 2,340.7 2 t68.3 12974.6 1620.1 2.307.0 2.406.3 2.45.6

__ d. FftIkLe Cw C 2,340.7 1.611.3 1,974.6 1.920.1 2.307.0 2.406.3 2460.0

2 NORD6 AOJCASTUEN2S

T.W2d. *di,,W .. A 4s.&. Wa. _____________

Pon C . _1_ _00__ 223.6 202 2.12 20.72 223-0 224.22 24.2

E" Fegw 4.6%26 ToadsAWtb 22.3%2 265.52 f1l.64 1s5.31 252W 264.61 261.32 l66.62SeS..22 22%2 2~~~~~40.41 236.12 141.72 238.42 149.71 250.81 251.712

S9j . E .1 Con. 23 016 270.22 265.52 M21 254.62 263.22 272. 21 73.62

r E m 6%.2ewu2. oWa t OW0.j 2.,42.7 2,694.0 2,06f.7 1,666.4 2. 20.6 2.200.5 2,243.4

5..w RIc EWAaWd I.Ah..4 boerv-dh 2,241.7 1 264.0 1,06.? 1,"66.4 2.1210 2,200.3 2,243.4

3 COSTS FROM TOE5R3 tO PHCESSU4 IWHOLESALE MARETD

Ta0ffS/S.ho~aIAj.m_ __

1 bWnp.. 200 KM 12.71 22.71 12.71 (2.71 (2.7 (2.72 (2.72

Od- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U.. o E q *ajw ad2dW A .wh lmw. 2,123.2 12,61.3 1,104.1 1.662.7 2,206.2 2.,26.2 2.2*0.1

-P6. IqaiE4 _ eU 2,136.1 2 ,692.3 2.604.1 2.662.1 2,206.2 2,266.2 2.240.7

t'34. P40CESSSIG COST rM)OLESALE hAMSE 1

Tw2lS.Jd.hJAdWs td 1176.62 122.61 1206.2 271.6 2390.62 (324 6t 320.02

Pftwc..m Cec SamemmA 2r.e.agiea.e13.0%i 2327.21 1343.52 2350.92 1328.02 2423.22 2435.52 2503.92

M *Wa.g UN W _ _ _ _ _ _

Olh by-ftollm" 260.9 247.3 277.2 233.1 407.7 386.0 394.0

Cw - Fo, 6o tw o pwl_m lI 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2 .9

IW Mc, E%W..en btoo Fi,.9 aIh Sha4We 640.6 530.3 514.2 590.6 t 90.4 614.4 638.3

Usd. SlIce EqWns b4.. ft-o.e_ twlWu h lI 700.4 536.1 584.7 530.6 736.2 744.2 727.5

S. COSTS FtOM COLLECTIO PT FAMI TO PROCESSOR

T.W2.lSSo,mlW.A a.ua..d.4. ______________

022., __ _ _ _ _

9sd. Pc. EqaIdniw e Cos.clowi P ne ftim I m- 4 UO.S 530.3 514.2 590F6 S9.4 614.4 621.3.

bWd. PIc E9 rd.WM ci Coge1ijoN P.*_A lhl_ We 700.4 538.9 564.7 530.8 736.2 744.2 727.5

6. DO4ES7TC SPCE 8ed.Whlwsoe 640.6 530.3 524.2 560.6 66.4 614.4 616.3

Codctio ab .t 2.F&.d 640.8 530.3 614.2 590.6 6t9.4 614.4 621.3

7. Ntm atWheIsseje .3% -1.6% -12.1% 11.3% 218.6% -17.4% -I5.0%

Cbe2. onl SWA 25wd .8.6% -1.3% .12.1% 11.3% .18.6% -17.4% 15.0%

2687 1966 1M86 9S60 162 2992 1293

a. 6edo-. w md8.aeebo.of bundb.nb-d..s . Th.w lgl,gsne Idos.s: a" AM.7% 90.1S% 9.3% S9.7% 848N 69.0% 94.2%

BonelesS 10.3% 3.9% 8.7% 40.3% 15.2% 112.% 5.16

b. Coeslm 2 leo boem b_l be t 34.76S% o f b bned is Ii 52%. A wiloh2ed alw.of bond end bw boonf ws utde lo d tholb conee.on IacE.C. Exte-le d2 diaonlion d_ to 2nol oantwe.

S&cwme: Swveftce Pr,Act, LA TAD, 1995

TABUE A-2bStanduilzed Format

Effective Rtate of Protection

ceAuyw: linAV yo xoa

Cc.l.itvr OMI L.8.0 F.,

1. OIJPSTMT11 s MI11 f,1

O-4,.11* PuceMk ljPol4 04016 Ms3 114.2 91006 110.4 014.4 681.3

a.-M UT~~f 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vok aU0,cs P1Ios 640.6 530.3 514.2 100.0 100.4 014.4 610.3

886ff Pik. 54jcSK Mk Poll 704 631. 884.7 M30. 710.7 744.2 727.5

a4l-.ly MTL.. 20 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

V46* at ais P11G EV54.,mwu 707.4 38. C 04.7 53[C 710.7 744.2 737.1

2. mRkAfLAk OIACT sesiuAc88i H86h lh.0Iy La 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0.suelt PIle. .... LMT 7.6 8.3 8.1 18 15.6 14.8 15.5

DWI..65 ca 7.8.3 6. 3.81. 14.0 15.8

888P11G 54 p11G. ...9 i.. . 4.6 3. 1 13. I3.

68.6. N18 I5%. C6. 0.0 8.3 4.1 2.7 15.7 12.2 12.6

T,awn- G46oy J1L. 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1i.0

DO.."c Mcam 12. 25 1468 2.7 2712.4

Dec.80. C88 12.3 12.6 10.3 1.5 22.1 12.7 13.4 o

68.68.0.1. 54 P11G. ft0J .5 576. .MT. 0. .

88.d. P11G E4. C.., e.5 e.7 6.0 4.5 162 10.2 1.5

De6.oe~~~~~~~~~~~~~~wU J .0 :.o 1.0 2.0 10 1.01.

O..-OMvle CA 84 7. Q . 446.7.

a88 P.1Gw 54 C.c 4.3 2.7 3.4 2.0 7.4 4.6 .11

C.......d~~~~~mn ~~.8.IyO E4gU 1.0 1.0 '.'0 1.0 1.0 1.010

0.in1GP1G ?IM1.6 I 2.2 6.4 512. 421.

D.8.ss. CeAl 14.8 12:.2 5.4 512. 41.

C,.P11G. Eq. P.1G. ft OAT 15. 1. 1. 4.4 254 16-.6 7.

4b. awd.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~88 pd1. Sq. Cst 11.5 11.6 10.0 4.4 25.4 16.5 17.1

TMN okect kg." I08..4 P1Ic.s 43.3 40.7 32.2 17.6 77.6 0. 50. 5 O-

TOMl DbMt &IPM (65.6. P11G. 35.2 31.0 20.3 13.8 10.6 42.7 45.1

3. IPAflASLO 6AD0l6CT SWIJIV.066. .16vla 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

DO..".eC. 6.1UT6.0 7.0 3.4 142 .1.7

8888 P.cS. 54 P Po. ... fMT.. 6.8 6. 6.2 .5106 6.8 7.72

C.d.8 Pd"8 Eq. C.", 6.6 8.a 5.2 2.5 IN. 8.8 7.2

D.8flm16cm18 4. 4.2 3.5267. 45 .

686.Pei.. 54 Ph88 ..... MTi 3.02 33 3.148440 4.

68.48 P11G ft CAN, 3.2 2.2 3.0 I 4 8.4 4.0 4.2

hipdrlry gaw a654 Da5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

De~1cm IfM ~ 1. 18. 26 823. 881.

Oweec 18. 18.6 r1 .22.5 1451.

6w6P11EA. 6Pcam Jf 12.1 121 6. 4.8 162 2.41

OWIC11040% 68.68y Mc 51e 1. 12.1 . . 21. 12.2

68inwdinm J6L..~~~~P" P- M 1.0 20 20 1. .0 1.02.

O.-"ftP8 ~ rJ 1 6.1I 5. 24 .3 I0.2 6. 71.1

0....4. C4.. 83.8 65. 12.0 24.3 107.2 67.8 72.1

- - 88~~~~~~wd pd"G 54 P10c. EmUT 46.342. 43.8 N03 8. 678 1.

8888 P11G ft. C.m 402 4.N3 01 6. N768.

TeEd 18wc P465 memmat hs 53.4 e4s 76.4 315.4 164.3 580104.2

TeEd h6.ecl k~~~~~~~~~~~ 204.6. PSImI ~~~~~~~~~~72.2 71.16.3 20.8 127.2 -S 0.

4. VMIUE ADD05.81 ~8MO Al DONMw. PAM. 41,17.5 465.6 452.0 572.7 622.5 10.6 107.4

Al lUu rEd Pd18 66.1 607.3 668.4 117.2 864.1 100.5 651.0

Oka" & 5.88 t656 At Deos 04.. 50460 364.0 406. 637.3 357.3 465.6 453.3

At pf8.E P141 64.0 4381 467.1 465.4 526.5 819.5 640.6

5. Wn Tla6* &Om II %3% .15.4% 10.0% -. O8% 4.94% .33.3%

e. DA0 *- 886658. OW- *I d8.OM6. fto &"wwd WpU6& M.55 *so-Me. W off We8 p8~

S.ame., Sw..dMm Aq1Gct. LA FAOA ISS.

TABLE A-2cSTANDARIZED FORMAT


C .. _y Uby; ,"y Typ.: Fp.od"'

Co-.oRrd1 BoE t..t.

uz ISO, 136 130 190 10s 100 1017 1966s 136 ime 16 16 1*v

Mm_mtVk at Outptd

OW*ut (Thoend ol Tom) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 720.1 655.3 4e.32 6*n0 6626 704.1 760.0

Pd..P Top %US) 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 $406 530.3 514.2 500S 390.4 614-4 610.5

T1W Mk.t VTd A .4 O4p.. (Thoooed SUB) 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 461,30 347.515 225.640 395.017 400.5 4695 402.700

Assb00sm (rhosUnS 812):

t .. kU p,. B.wod 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 (42.074) (5.650 (30.604) * 0.970 (93.57A) (00 4Is" (t .322)

Mueko ad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0

5npoPaid.. a 0 0 0 0 0 0 (O10.06) (8.524) 43.610) 11.650 (15.160) (12,225) M4S.T

C,sdc Asfni 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (50) 345 400 02 15.54 0.542 2924

_d.omc A EfoIndUn 0 0 0 0 0 0 a -S4 60? 5140 .00 2.055 4.709 1.177

oIdo Aasb%nim 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (usaU) (13.500 (33.600) 40.300 609.410) (400.003) (50.045)

Pn_rhw Subskly Eqlalwt -41.4. -3.0e -450 4 002% -21.4* -21.3S -12.1?.

TABLE A-3aStandardized Format

Nominal Rate of Protection

C,nu.tr1,: tS,gwY Tt EbloConeadlty: Flece Woo Point of Co"nttito.w: FRwcaW

1987 198I 1989 1790 1991 1"2 11131. UKWUSJTED O 805)R PUICE

E.dten gtet N11,11 pt DO 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

8indr hftie Ee 2,991.S 4,302.5 5628.0 4.251.7 3,239.8 3,382.6 3,t37.6

dwdr Ftei h LW ttC 2,S991.t 4.302.6 6,828.0 4,261.7 3,239.8 3,382.6 3,637.5

2. ttt01W AJUSTtNTS

Pan Cs._ _ _ _ (23.01 (22.01 122.01 (22.01 (22.01 (22.01 122.01trAW Fe 1.76SI & T,.1 AAwn4. (.66$1 (410.SI 150.21 181.61 (59.51 145.41 (47.4) 50.91

9( (.6151 (55.41 (N6.01 (117.61 185.41 (65.61 (70.21 176.11

6R Phoe Eqsduiamt (wilh, vle7aatiw 2,658.3 4,136.2 6,605.8 4,064.8 3,10.8 3.243.0 3.48 4Boed Phiev Eqtuiant I(itst trttn,ndwol 2,888.3 4.13S.2 6.806.5 4,084.8 3,106.8 3.243.0 3,48 4

3. COSTS FROM 5OR6DER TO PROCESStIG (WHOLESALE MAIKETI

TaMrUlas*dieu/Ad4.aavmas, __________

T,aaportation 6 Et. 10.11 10.11 10.11 10.1) 10.11 (0. 1 (0.11

(vrl 8qrtbr Phl0 Eqs tsnt tdtw Pnt e.uig (with itrvttntionl 2,868.2 4,136.1 6,606.7 4.084 6 3,106.7 3.242 9 3,488.3adrt rPnce Eq,&Wttnt aftw P,ose.in (without ihtwentionl 2,868.2 4,135.1 5,606.7 4.084.6 3.106.7 3,242.9 3,488.3

4. PFIOCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKETI

Tanffhi,Sosud9k./Atd nt~tsP-ocuing Costs 1372.41 j400.11 (447.5) (453 11 (502 41 (621 7) (160.81

Ma.keting Ma,gine -Oth.r By*,oduct. 60.8 856a 128.8 91.9 73.0 84.9 94.8

Co,w,roion 1. 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5

Bwrder Phc Eqoiaeot balm. Poco.sg (with .toent.on( 1,605.0 2,750.1 3,731.4 2,670 9 1.875 9 1,797 6 1.956.38-Od, PR.e Eqivlatnt bto. P-oressIng tw.thowt im.rnett,on( 1,805.0 2.760.1 3,731 4 2,670 9 1.876 9 1.797 6 1,956.3

5. COSTS FROM COCLECTION POINT (FARMI TO PROCESSOR

TaI.Hs/S-bvd.ssuAdustow.nt. Ic) 55.4 144.5 10.7 (629.1) (587.7) (344.7) (340 5)TrAnpnortationOth., Fnanctal cot 16% Anon t3 0) (19 8 ( t26 9) (19 2) (13 5) (12 91 114.1)

_SIOIn9Q 118 1) i27 6) (37.3) (26 71 (168 el 18 1601 (9.61

Bord., rice Eq.ioalnlt at Collect,oo Point (wItwhb nrw1- onl 1,829 4 2,847 3 3,677 9 1,995.9 1,256.0 1.422 0 1.582 2

Border Pfico Equi-nlen at Colecton Point (withoul t.oet-otioo( 1,774.0 2,702 8 3.667 2 2.624 9 1.843 6 1,766 7 1.922 6

6. DOMESTIC PFRCE So.We, -Wholer.le 1.860.6 2,894.6 3,742.1 2,041.8 1,288.2 1,452.9 1,615.8Collection Pomt IFaml) 1,829.4 2,847 3 3,677.9 1,995 9 1,256 0 1422 0 1,582 2

7. NPFR utoda,Whlobt]. 0 0% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0 0% 0.0%

Collect, Pon,o (F.,wl 31% 5 3% 0.3% -24 0% 31.9% 19.5% 17 7%

1987 1988 1989 1960 1991 1992 1993

a. a.. d no a wsighted coesag fl eece. washed and tops wool. The weights e as foIlows: Fleace 21i9% i30.6% f26.3% 280% i239,3% 13 6% 15 6%Washed 17.4% 15.3% 12.3% 12.0% 14.0% 14.5% 12.9%Tops 53.7% 54 2% 61.4% 60.0% 62.7% 71.6% 71.5%

b. Al wool cow.ofl.d to Iltoce wool baiss. C fn a.on (autos IsI washd wool is 57.2% nd tops 1 63%... Estnate of doitorton dae to naset esqact-r.

Source: Surveaence Project. LA TAO. t995

TABLE A-3bStandariized Format


Ce..nu: unrw. Typ: Ers,t.

C01oeoo*y. LoSb 3r0L d .00 MooI LeOg: FP0-

t1117 1_ mB 156 Ino I",6 1192 1113

00g1. Pr* 16t$ Pl MT 1b5 2.525 3,521 5.076 2.754 1.733 1.962 2,13

trwity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

V.l, .a 0-4060 P1n.8 2.524.6 3.269.3 5.075.B 2,754.3 1,733.2 1.162.4 2,113.4

sd. rt. E-its P. MUT t14 2,448 3.730 5,101 3.622 2,S44 2.436 2.,63

04Dlry tMT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

V.. at bIde, tO. Eqwivbol 2,448.1 3,729,8 5050.5 3,622.4 2.544.2 2.436.0 2,s63.2

2. TR%ADAIE DRECT SPUTSA.i1m1 H.Mth OW y t04 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

OoqoOl P.o P6, MT 424.1 442.2 471.2 434.8 534.1 513.1 6625

0 be0.50 Ce l 424.1 442.2 471.2 434.5 S34.1 513.1 163.5

I4d., Pd.. Eq. Pno P.S MT 300.0 313.7 232.5 307.2 374.9 375.6 52B. I

10,d4, Pdce Eq. Con 300.6 313.7 332.5 307.2 374.9 375.5 s25.1

Tla,sp3n 0O1v , 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D-*0,oo P4Go P., MT 19.1 23.0 24.1 23.7 21.414 20.1I

00101.05 Cosl 19.1 23.0 24.1 23.7 21.4 18.4 20.1

54,P-1G Eq. Mi-l PM, MY 14.6 18.2 11.0 19.0 17.1 14 5 15.8

5wd0 Pde Eq. Cm 14.5 16.2 19.0 13.0 17.1 14.5 15.1

Di0.1 o030 04ntity 3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

0o0witi0 Mkso Pat MT 52.9 51.0 58.2 56.0 67.0 53.61 16.6

00.1.0* Cool 52.9 01.0 5b.2 56.0 87.81 53.8 66.8

ll.d4, P.i4. Eq. PMo.. P. 1MT 24.3 32.3 28.5 33.1 40.4 29.0 35.4

6Owd04 PMks Eq. Coml 24.3 32.3 28.S 33.1 40.4 29.0 3524

Co.0,lG0a3Osdo 0

O-b.y 303 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 10

D-..lk PfiC P1 MT 107.1 173.7 225.5 132.1 63.2 85.8 88.3

D-aeG Col 107.1 173.7 225.5 132.1 83.2 s5.8 88.3

6od0., 5440. Eq. Pli P., MT 103.9 164.8 224.9 173.7 122.2 106.5 107.3

-t 60,.d, PMio. Eq. Co.3 103.6 164.8 224.9 173.7 122.2 106.6 107.J

Totaul 00.03t I4 IlD,.o Pl4-0o. 603.2 699.9 777.0 56".0 706.5 670.9 867.9

ToWI Di-01t 5t l P61., ftit 443.7 629.0 604.9 533.0 554.6 525.8 885.5

3 TIIAOABLE 5R1ECr NPUTSVOlcl-. 0t003 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

01.ti4 Pdc. P.r MT 66.9 66.0 6E.2 16.2 66.2 53.0 o6.5

DOn.4o Co.l 65.9 66.0 GE.2 60.2 65.2 53.0 66 5

60o,d. pliG. Eq. PMC. P.. uT 47.9 48.0 48.4 49.1 51.0 39.4 49.5

6,.de, PMks Eq. Co.t 47.9 48.0 45.s 49.1 51.0 29.4 49.5

031030.160*04ai 04..01ty (31.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 3.0

0.10i.0 PNll P01o M-T 2162. 625.3 23.1 20.3 24.8

0D.D Cool 21.8 22.4 23.5 25.3 23.1 20I. 3 24.5

6wd4, PMI" Eq. Pic. Pe.r MT 19. 18.3 18.7 21.9 21.1 39.2 23.8

50d,4, P1i4. Eq. CoOt 19.6 15.1 18.7 21.9 21.1 19.2 23.0

544.,tiwy ROpOLf E,0-t3y 331.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 i.0 1.0

0000.34 P,.o. PMv MT 12.0 12.o 12.0 12.0 12.0 9.6 12.1

D-i.c Cool 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 9.6 12.1

60d4, Mhica Eq. P,30a Mr T 8.7 5.7 5.8 6.9 9.3 7 2 9.0

6,d4., PNce Eq. Coml 8.7 8.7 .8 6.9 9.3 7.2 9 0

DOoo.i,.lon O. r 303 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D1.d0 Pn. PoN wMT 365.5 391 9 404.7 421.2 39.5 337.7 417.2

Dom,De. Coi - 385.6 391.9 404.7 421.2 3538 337.7 417.2

5O,d., Pd4e Eq. MsG. Per MT 317.5 303.0 310.3 344.2 340.8 292.4 381.8

80d., Pne. Eq. CoL 317.5 3030 3103 344.2 340.8 292.4 361.8

Total h54801 khAs (0o.1. M,i...31 486.2 492.3 501.6 524.7 501.2 420.6 620.6

TOVA kdl&ot 10 (S,d4., P1i..3 394.1 377.8 396.4 424.1 422.1 358.3 443.8

4. VALUE ADOM04-0l5,pua Ouy Alt oo,,,S i. M... 1,921.4 3,228.4 4,298.5 2,107,7 1,026.7 1.293.5 1,316.5

Al 3vw0 w4al P0... 2,004.4 3,200.8 4.455.9 3,069.4 1.969.8 1,912.4 1.966.5

0,.. t & kwo-l 5a5s Al D0ali. Pli1.. 1,436.3 2,77.1 3,791.5 1583.0 525.5 s70.9 794.5

Al Micas Dt h. 1,610.3 2823.0 4,069.4 2,686.4 1,567.5 1,554.2 1,522.7

S. EPR TIOdb. hpat -10.8% 3.0% O6.S% .40.5% .56S% 440% .47.8%

*. O4 VW d d -04. .. n .0 I d I & 414.0 nd W41 1d.0 of nlr, Cy t 00 10,1 P. MT aM. p-0.4.4d.

5. S-c -p 010 * p110401" 0CA. ol v0 -nd 0 0. d m41 .0 5d14.1 bd.6 n p5ic is . compo-t 1 bo03I5001 V0 d m t h..th0 6.t1.3 0 26%0 wool o03d..

SoWcO: Surveftico Proet. LA TAD, 1195.

TABLE A-ScSTANDARIZED FORMAT


counrAr Ufl,9 0y Tyo: E.Nq.b Cmo..dmr Wood L.Wt Fm

lSM 1991 low low 1964 l9w 1m 197 ImO IEE 199w 1991 1996 1N*

4o Pdwp _ ch d6 1 T4W) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o 02 "A 02J 963 3A6 044 a1.0

PleoPw PMT (U) 0.0 o0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2,224.0 2020.3 1075.5 2,754J2 1733.2 1,"2.4 2,103.4

TOW kot V.W .000 (Thm . 61S6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 227,722 340.449 4196.9 2S .79 102.74 165A63 1706.57

AhfIo6 (Tho _s.ms US):Mmk "sIf0Spp.l 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6.901 17.736 1.216 (32.565) (76.067) (10.156) (2.066)

MW4b0 bwd * 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 * 0 0

0. o * 0 0 0 0 0 (204) (1.6 (1.1) (17.511q6) (16.706) (15.460) (17m2

CA*A lAdob1 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .274 2,465 1.212 1.o "64

R.,.Ih8 ElIsAdon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 417 405 414 1.503 1.45" 1.304

Tot.IPmbanh.ce 0 0 0 0 a 0 6 (62303) 2.742 (12.124) 199.172) (34,355) (52.225) (32.3226

Voduow hub*W E % -2.0% -27.4% -50.01 -31.51 -56211



Cuntry: Uruguy Type: ExponableComm,od(l: Milk Point of Competition: Proceor

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 19931. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE

Exchnge Rate NUrS Per olfar 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0BorderPri ValueEquivalentlal_ 167.5 173.8 2444 237.7 226.1 268.5 2572

Border Price in Local Currency 167.5 73.8 244.4 237.7 226.1 268.5 257.2

2. BORDER ADJUSTMENTS

Tertfls/Suhbedi./Adlutlmeo.

Port Chargees________________Eperter Cost 17.71 (8.0) 111.31 l l 0) 110.41 H12.41 (11.91

Border Prica Equia-ent (with interueoti-n( 159.8 165 8 233.2 226.7 215 7 256.1 245.4Border Pric Equicelenl Iwilhuel irir- elirn) 169 8 165 8 233 2 226.7 215.7 256.1 245.4

3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING IWHOLESALE MARKET)

TaHtfs/SubbidiesdAdietr.tent

Other

Border Price Equloelen1t alter PEocasug Jwilh otarnein) 159 8 165.6 233.2 226 7 215.7 256 1 245.4Border Price Equ.Ivalent ter Procening (without intcrtio) 1598 165.8 233.2 226.7 215.7 256.1 245.4

4. PROCESSING COST (WHOLESALE MARKET)

OC7 TfTltu/Subhidies/AdjustmenIs __Id) 18.8) 119 4) (43 21 157.01 (21.91 116 1) 137.31Pr--esng C...Cmr.carxto irri (12.2) (12 4) (17 5) (16.6) (15.91 (2 3.1) 115.11Maktck ug Mlaics odir Sa - .. 1 20 2) (203) (23 0) (22.51 (23 (1 44 4) 129 1)Olhrr

C-over.on _= __ .0 __ (0 1 0 I 0 __ 0 10 (.0

Border Price Equicelteit b -lor Proceuuioq (wits itlervebton6 1106 ((3.7 149 4 130.6 154.1 172 5 160 8Border Price Equivalent-br- Procsenog -wirh.ut oternoto 127.4 133.2 1926 1876 176.0 1886 198.1

5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR

Tartffi/SubhidiaulAdiustme.ts ___

Other _______,__________ __________ ______ ___________

Border Price Equivalnt at Collection Point (with inti'conlion) 118.6 113 7 149.4 130 6 154 1 172 5 160 8.Irdr Price Equielo atCollection Poi.t (irhouinmteterit-oo) 127.4 1332 192.6 1876 1760 188.6 198 1

6. DOMESTIC PRICE BorderWholesale 1186 113.7 149.4 130.6 154.1 172.5 160.8Collection Point (Farm) 1166 1137 149.4 130.6 154.1 172.5 1608

7. NPR BorderWholesale 69L -14.6% 22.4% -30 4% 12 4% -8 6% 18.8%Colbction Poinlt (Farm) 6 9% -14.6% 22 4% -30 4% 12 4% -8 6% -188%

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993Valuequialet is composed ot the diterenm expons: Powdered MlIk Price 1.2178 1.3297 1,997.4 1.9648 1.771.9 2.1378 2,06-51

Amount 82 7 82.7 82.7 82.7 82 7 82.7 82 7So.t Ch.e.e Price 2,011 .9 2.149.4 2.704 3 2.707 7 2.562 7 2.699 7 2,777 2

Amount 93 6 93.6 93.6 936 93.6 93 8 93 6Butter Price 1.2796 1,167.0 1,623.1 1,5072 1,652.3 2.1308 1,8900

Amount 49.5 49.5 49 5 49.5 49 5 49 5 49 5b Ratio of xporte ftom two differ.nt proceuuee. Powdered Milk land butter) 69 3% 70.3% 64.4% 6886% 70 8% 28.9% 68.7%

Sotr Cheese (and butt.r) 30 7% 29.7% 35.6% 31.4% 29 2% 71 1% 31 3%c. Value equ)nalenl is calculated by the amount ot product obtain from the Iwo differe processes timets prrce (see to-renot- a), a-id weighted by th th.e -alu of the producl is eyponed (se tolenote bI.d. Eutimat. of distrniun de to market sktucture

Source: Surveillance Project, LA TAD. 1995

TABLE A-4bStandardized Format


Coisty: lktgcey Type: E.porsbl

Coerr.odily: Milk Level: Fsom

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1 OUTPUTDo-oestr Price NU,n Per MT 119 114 149 131 154 173 161

Du only MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Value eO Dosreoc Prices 118.6 113.7 149.4 130.9 164.1 172.5 160.8

tide, Price Ewqclenr NUr, Per MT 127 133 193 186 176 189 198

Dunc-ty MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0

Value at eader Pric Equacelosr 127 4 133.2 192.6 187.6 176.0 168.6 198.1

2 TRADAILE DeRECT NPUTSArrl Heelth Oanety Jjj 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dor ec Price Per MT 8.4 9.9 8.3 738 9.6 12.0 12.9

Darretic Cos 8.4 9.6 9.3 7.8 9.9 12 0 12.99

ti,de, Pric Eq. Price Per MT 5.6 6.4 5.6 6.3 6.6 .

tide, Pice Es. Cos 5.6 86.4 5.6 6 3 6.5 8 81 8

F-res Crops Quec-ry }qj 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1 0

D-0rece Price Per MT 14.3 15 1- 16 -- I.3 17.5 17.3 16.3 17.3

O-erbc Ccst 14.3 15.1 16.3 17.5 17.3 16 3 17.3

Bidr Pric EQ. Price Per MT 12 5 13.1 13.7 14.6 14.9 16.2 15.6

tidar Price Eq. C.,, 12.5 13.1 13.7 14.6 14.9 16.2 15 6

Milkirp Eopondis-s Da,tiy t 1.0 t 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0

Doresic Pr:c- Pr MT 0.5 0.5 06 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 7

Doeslc Coer 0.6 05 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7

tide, Price Eq. Price Per MT 0.S 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9

tider Pric Eq. Cosr 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.9

C-6-rerielie.tor Dunoty WAL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0

Domestic PrC Per MT 19.4 21.2 27.1 19 9 27.6 26.1 271.

DQ,,,r,ssc Cast 19.4 21.2 27.1 19.9 27 6 26.1 27.9

See,der Pric Eq. Price PerMT 12.9 14.1 16.1 13.3 19.4 17.4 19.4

4P.- B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~tder Prie Eq. Ccc rz2.s 14., -- 5.I 14.3 181.4 1 ,.4 la.4

0 Telal Direct bests lOoD-bc Prics) 42.6 45.4 52.3 45.7 56.1 57.1 5s.5

TOWa Direc-t tpin IBider P.cel 31.6 34.2 38.2 33.8 40.5 42.5 43.7

3. TRADABLE NtDIECT PPUTSArstu Nocritl- DOu ty Iff 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0

Dorreic Price Per MT 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0

Domesti Coot 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.0

tider Pric Eq. Poe. Per MT 1.0 0.7 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.1 0.9

tid.r Pric Eq. Cost 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.2 1 1 0.9

Milk Trars nety .1a 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.o

Deomsoc Price Per MT 7.6 7.9 10.2 6.4 10.1 11.9 11.3

DoirroDC Cost 7.9 7.9 10.2 6.4 lOt 11.9 11.3

tider Pric Eq Poce Per MT 6.6 9.1 S.7 8.0 7.7 6. 9.3

Serdor PieEq. Cast 6.6 9.1 8.7 6.0 7.7 9.50.

Stroctrass Deoocietiorr Du not6

l . 1.0 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 t 0 1.0

DosrebC Price Per MT 21.4 23.33 24.2 21.6 23.4 23.9 24.7

Dorre stic. Cos 21.4 23.3 24.2 21.6 23.4 23.9 24.7

tidr Price, Eq., Pric Per MT 16.7 20.1 22.1 20.0 21.9 22.2 2.

Seeder Pice Eq. Cost 18.7 20.1 22.1 20.0 21.9 22.2 22.9

Stacti,s Rosa., DInnty _ 1.. 1.0 1 0 1.0

DooesDc Prc Per MT 2.1 2.3 2 22 2.3 2. 2.6

Doroesso Cos 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.

tider Price Eq. Pric Per MT 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.2 3.6

tider Price Eq. Cost 1.9 2.0 2.2 7.0 2.2 2.2 3.8

TotW t -reo hpsts IDoestc Priced. 32.3 34.2 37.7 33.1 37.1 39.2 39.4

Total 1iWae- hprub it8der Price) 27.2 29.0 33.9 31.0 33.0 34.0 36.7

4. VALUE ADDEDDirecwt kpt Ody A,roDi ree P es 756.9 67 4 97.1 84.9 99.0 115.4 102.4

Al bIter-eboe Prio.s 96.9 94.9 164.5 1153.81 135.4 146.1 1564.4

DOredt & kriret hrvos Ar Daorsc Prics 43.9 33.1 69.3 51.8 61.9 79.2 62.9

At h,aroetgol Prices 68.7 70.0 120.9 122.8 102.5 112.1 117.7

5. EPR TradWble bpvr, -36.4% -52.6% -50.8% -57.9% 39 6% .32.0% 46.5%

e. DrY W ef detiled ca fte ol Use dew sod Use th il of Ylac. odny soet atrres per MT ens pro-idd.

Source: Ssriveance P'rvecC LA TAD. 1995.

TABLE A-4cSTANDAIMZED FOFIMAT


C.r: ikooV Ty": Eow.IC..o 7 , 6H L.wL Fm

low t low IIWt to" 10 tlows tloo lso l0w 0a 1301 1002 low

Uug1mVam ed ~h1uO."(h of Tw) 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 60o.0 0. 931 52.0 ,75.2 301.6 1,115.0 t.9710

O FkP6P*.To. ($US) 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 IlLS6 45.7 dR4 30A 154.1 172.3 160W

T704. U3,k*t V.06.*0 O.at ffh.em,lk SUB) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 105.802 142.2 127.339 152.061 162.533 1M3.45

A_bP6SO (ThomeNi $US):

.. otM $wooo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 (0 41.2) (55.05 1) ( T21741 (17.6031 (43.010"

d"*o.mg a d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

kipidoki o 0 0 0 0 0 0 (6,340) (6.30) (0.3355) (5.540) (7.45) (10.20) (6...O,

C.edAisbe0 0 0 0 0 o66 2J107 2.536 634 400 472

bwdIhA Ebndoin 0 0 0 0 0 O.065 1.037 750 1.74 1.76 1.731 .J20

To&dAs e a 0 0 0 0 0 o (1*3264) (21,344) 144.302) (5.456)" (2.753% (25.105 (46

Pn>rom Sublsy Eqiwabnt -_1.7% -20.2% -54.4% -45.6% -153% -13.8% -24.4%



ceutry Unrrm Two: E rbteCm e_rr : Rbe yPoi of Contliorn: P(oCMr

IU7 196 1869 ISo o31 1992 1963

1. UWAOJVSTE0 BORER PEICE

Ea chiereRt e NUk8Prf rOr I I 1 1 I I 1

Obrder Pr, 264.6 341.9 338.7 340.0 417.5 308.2 289.9

(lard-r I'vie In t-c C-ea 764.6 341.9 338.7 340.0 417.8 306.7 739.9

2. BtOIDEFnADJUSIMENIS

TaitIsSuhbas/Aq*wentawvIw

PF Clare ____ _ _

B" nk PaF (.75%) (2.0) (2.6) (2.5) (2.6) (3.1) (2.3) (2.2)

Trod Aoents (1.5%) (4.0) (5.1) I5.) (5.1) (6.3) (4.6) (4.31

Sloraw/are riross

BordePriceEquicent (fwh intervention) 258.6 334.2 331.1 332.4 408.1 301.3 283.4

border FPice Equkag (without intfrentlon) 258.6 334.2 331.1 332.4 408.1 301.3 263.4

3. COSTS FROM BRORER TO PROCESSING (W4HOLESALE MAFKET)

Taiff U SubsideslAdjontn,entTraneinal o 120 km 12.7) (2.8) 12.7) (2.8) (2.9) (2.9) (2.8)

Other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

U)

Border Price Equrva ent alter Processn (widh eterveu ) 255.9 331.4 328.3 329.5 405.2 298.4 280.5

Border Price Equrlmnt alter Processin (widhout etervention) 255.9 331.4 328.3 329.6 405.2 298.4 280.5

4 PROCESSING COSI (W(OLESALE MARKET)

Twrd(stStArsidies/Austrrvsents 32.8 5.1 (3.7) (53.7) (19.7) 12.2 27.4

Processing CostsMrketin MergesOt0r Stora & Ottg (7.3) (7.3) (7.3) (7.3) (7.3) (7.3) (7.3)

Fhk,c Coat (3.5) (3.5) (3.5) (3.5) (3.5) (3.5) (3.5)

Co.wees,on 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.9 2.0

Border PriceEquivaitn btwo Prroctr (whh IrAwweAtlon) IttO2 201.0 191.0 177.0 233.0 160.0 151.2

Bordert ree Equiate boler Proceablg (withouthe voto) 141.3 197.8 193.2 212.9 245.2 153.5 137.2

5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARItI TO PMOCESSOR

Teri(taISrAuld/A4amernts _____ _leWsre.qtortat kmtrt

Other

Noeder Price EquIvaent at Cotectlon Poin wde InAth seriera d 160.2 201.0 191.0 177.0 233.0 160.0 151.2

Borde rirce EqrlN~t at CobllatotlPoin(whhout intervarrtler) 141.3 197.8 193.2 212.3 245.2 153.5 137.2

6. DOMESTIC PIECE SeedeAWteoiaa( 160.2 201.0 1910 177.0 233.0 160.0 151.2

Calcbtdn Point Farrm) 10.2 201.0 191.0 177.0 233.0 1le.0 151.2

7. .. BodroWhdw(aa( 13.4% 1.6% *1.2% -16.9% -5.0% 4.2% 10.2%

Cetlction Pain (Far.) 13.4% 1.6% *1.2% .16.9% .5.0% 4.2% 10.2%

Souce: Survyeance Precf, LA TAD, 1995



C....y-: P..T. Ss5.4

1947 IIM Is"@ i-"-0 la,1 IZ IM3

1. ollXlTD5.sli- Nkk$ P.MT 150.2 201.0 151.0 177.0 223.0 160.0 1i1.2

0D.Mv UIT 1.0 1.0 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

V.. - D_lbft PH- 150.2 201.0 151.0 177.0 223.0 140.0 161.2

3.5 P.4 t0s.5 NIkr P. MT 140.3 157.1 152.6 213.2 241.2 153.1 137.2

0.5.557 MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

V.Ill . 5d. W- Eq.Wll 140.3 197.1 152.5 213.2 245.2 163.S 137.2

2. TPSAOAKE OFECT PUTS--. D. kV 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D- b.CPd. P.MT 10.5 10.3 10.5 134 15.0 10.5 100

D5.54&5 C..T 10.5 10.9 10.9 13.4 15.0 10.5 10.0

55.8. P455 Eq. PA.. P. MT 10.5 10.5 10.0 13.4 1 5.0 10.5 10.0

5B." P. fq. .6 10.5 10.5 10.5 13.4 11.0 10.5 t0.0

F-11- O,llk5y J 1.0 o.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

3-.t. PA. P. MT 6.5 0.3 11.0 5.7 8.4 10.2 *.7

D-_1. bC 6.5 8.3 11.0 *.7 8.4 10.2 9.7

518 P. Eq. _- P. MT 6.7 * .3 * .9 7.1 7.0 5.4 5.1

5.d. t,5 Eq. Cs 6.7 5.3 5.5 7.1 7.0 0.4 5.1

P.l55d5 _l-h5y { 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D-,tk Plis. P. MT 10.1 10.1 4.5 5.0 4.8 5.0 5.1

D i.: Ce. 10.1 10.1 4.5 5.0 4.5 5.0 5.1

5.5 P Eq P- P. MT 7.7 7.7 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.5

5. PId. Eq. C-, 7.7 7.7 3.7 3.0 3.8 3.0 3.5

_ D_ ON __ 0 ISy N 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D-. PS_. -P. MiT 3.5 4.2 4.3 4.0 3.5 4.3 5.4

D,-,,ls c. 3.5 4.2 4.3 4.0 3.0 4.3 5.4

5e.. PFtk Eq. P_4 P. MT 2.5 3.2 3.3 3.1 2.5 3.3 4.2

5.d. Pl Eqc. Co 2.5 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.5 3.3 4.2

EJ> TTl6 Db1.h5,,505.4. P55. 31.2 3.5 31.1 21. 0 32.0 30.0 20.2

t'5) 5T. D5 * (5.8. F1.* 27.7 30.1 25.8 27.4 24.4 26.1 26.2

3. TPADA9tE IIECT SIPIUTSV8 a T._. Ol.uy t 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D, Nlb. P. MT 25.5 25.7 20.1 23.7 29.5 24. 33$.

D_k C5Q 21.9 25.7 25.1 23.7 25.1 34.5 33.6

_d E. p.4 EP. P.Mt 11.4 14.0 12.7 1S4 15.5 15.7 15.2

S5.M. P. Eq. Cos 11.4 14.5 12.7 13.4 15.5 15.7 19.2

1bqd .. _._.. D7 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D0.~ P". P. MT 13.8 13.5 13.3 13.5 13.5 15.5 132.

D,-_lk C., 13.0 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.9 13.9 13.5

. 4.554 Fl_ P. MT 10.7 10.5 10.9 lOS 10.5 10.3 10.lo

e._ P4 EP . c C_ 10.7 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5

D _n.45 0..Sy D_g1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D0.,.* bP.. P.M7 27.0 19.5 14.7 11.0 5.5 13.4 10.2

D0 l_bCS5 27.0 1U.S 14.7 11.0 5.5 13.5 10.2

1.8d.5 P". PH. P. MT 25.7 10.0 14.0 1o.1 o .1 12.5 3.7

5.8d. 54554 cms 21.7 15.0 14. 10.1 5.1 12.5 5.7

M608 ... MsIdM 4. -A.kv Pl 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D.. lk Pd. P. MT 11.5 15.7 12.7 10.7 10.5 16.4 12.3

D-_I C_.I 1C. 15.7 12.7 10.7 10.5 16.4 12.3

S- q. Ms. Eq. . P.KT 17 14.5 11. 10.1 9. 15.5 11.6

558 P 4q cs 17.3 14.1 11.5 10.1 5.5 15.5 11.0

T4. h_A6 h7.. 0)..5. P5.1 9 9 .3 78.2 57.4 15.3 63.5 75.4 70.0

T8ld W6*5 k.5. 5.. pA5 6. 58.5 40.3 44.4 4".5 55.5 51.2

4. VALIE ADDEDD0 Wel.. 0* Al D _.. . Ms.. 129.0 167.1 155.5 146.0 201.0 130.0 121.0

Al 5. .P_ 112.5 157.0 16".8 185.7 216.6 127.4 111.1

oi.6&5 hsl.. At D..- P8.. 42.8 85.3 52.5 *4.7 137.5 51.6 51.0

Al k. P8- 45.5 101.2 115.3 141.4 170.1 60.5 15.$

S. E_ T n.db bW. C.85% .17.5% .20.6% .3.7% .13.1% .24.7% .14.5%

5. O. I. *hI 8 4 1 . .8 b SL 1h5 .. Sss d _c. Mf h- _ s1.s8

Sw-.: Sww.n. AcS L4 TAD. (895

TABLE A-SeSTANDARIZED FORMAT


C.*r hoU. Tm: Es_oobC_ z : tk1:e T*1S*

Hind Vohi ci Ou( ACuSpA (rbooo.dh of Toms) 0.0 0.0 u.s e.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 J555 300.2 *3172 347. 402.0 057.0 700.

tJS Flee PM Too (vuS) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l0e2 201.0 101.0 177.0 253,0 WOO e.e12

TOW >kS V. of O(TI OtTelmod WSU) a 0 0 0 0 0 "0745 78.499 102.5.0 91471 114.774 0.700 105.07

pk. -P ppat 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o jm .ASI7 (02) (5.5 1.054) 400 S.74

M s~0 a 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0

bow 0pad" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1Ol2) (0167) tO.407) (4.8305 (7.027 (11.5453 (15.057)

Or le Asdoom 0 0 0 0 0 4.730 4.070 S.70 7.94 7.211 S0 79

m05 Ak & fd 0 0 0 0 a D 0 0 1O 201 104 700 o 750

TOW @Ps Os 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.402 (Ism (4.200 (9.040 (5.05) P." t1) t2,336)

Ptedsu Sbsidf E*pioM 10.1% -0.5% -4.2% -101% -S1% -5.4% -5.2%



Country: Unuuy Type: Exportabb

Commodity: Batsy Point of Competition: Processor

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1. UNADJUSTED BORDER PRICE

ExdWne Rate NUr Pr Dolwr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Border Priuce _ 229.4_ 274.9 _ 304.4 298.7 31t8. 317.9 223.0

B.rtd., irrk- e Local Cirri." 229.4 274.9 304.4 29. 7 318.1 317.9 223.0


Tariffs/Subsidies/AdjusmnentsPort Chgres

Bank Fee (1.5%) & Trede Agent /1.3W (6.4) (7.7) 18.5) (8.4) (8.9) t8.9) (6.2)

Exporter Cost 01.0%) (2.3) (2.71 (3.0) (3.0) (3.2) (3.2) (2.2)

Storagea snotheg/Loss

Border Price Equivalnt (with tmervention) 220.7 264.4 292.8 287.3 306.0 305.9 214.5

Border Price Equivalent (wrt htervention) 220.7 264.4 292.8 287.3 306.0 305.9 214.5

3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET)

Terills/Subsidies/AdjustmentsTrensWorttion (8.4) (8.9) t9.0) (9.0) (8.9) (8.6) (9.5)

Oth"er -__

UI 0Border Price Equrivlent after Processsing (wih intervention) 212.3 255.5 283.8 278.3 297.2 297.3 205.0

Border Price Equivalent after Processing (without intervention) 212.3 255.5 283.8 278.3 297.2 297.3 205.0


Tarills/Subsidies/Adjustments (22.2) (78.2) (111.61 (102.2) (106.81 (66.9) (39.3)

Procassin Costs

Merketng Margins Ouity Dscowts (4.3) (5.3) 15.9) (5.91 (6.2) (6.01 (3.8)

Other Storage (3.9) (5.1) (6.0) (5.5) (5.3) (5.0) (4.5)

Fmnar Cost (2.7) (3.2) (3.5) (3.5) (3.7) (3.7) (2.6)

Covarskon lb) 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.9 1.5

Border Price Equivalent belore Processig (with intervention) 102.9 106.0 109.0 105.0 102.0 115.0 100.0

Border Price Equivalent before Processing (without inervention) 115.6 156.6 186.7 171.5 164.2 150.7 125.4

S. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR

T wiflqSubsidies/AdrluslmentsTrensportation=Other

Border Price Equivalent t Coltection Point (with intervention) 102.9 106.0 109.0 105.0 102.0 115.0 100.0

Border Prie Equivalent at Colection Point (without entervention) 115.6 156.6 186.7 171.5 164.2 150.7 125.4

6. DOMESTIC PRICE BorderWhoesab 102.9 106.0 109.0 105.0 102.0 115.0 100.0

Colection Point (FFrm) 102.9 106.0 103.0 105.0 102.0 115.0 100.0

7. NPR BorderWhoksIj -11.0% -32.3% -41.6% -38.8% -37.9% -23.7% -20.3%

Colection Point (Form) -11.0% -32.3% -41.8% -38.8% -37.9% -23.7% -20.3%

a. Bsed on a weighted average of grei end malted wool. The weights we as lowows: GCrah 20.4% 32.8% 43.0% 35.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Melted 79.8% 67.2% 57.0% 64.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

b. Al bitey converted to grai equivalent. Conversion factor lor malted barley is 69%.

Source. Surveillance Project. LA TAD, 1995



Country: LU,ruuy TVp: Erportebie

Conerodqty Baord Lel: F-rm

1 OUdTPUT 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

Dtoemic Pr-c lr, Paer MT 102.9 106.0 109o0 105.0 102.0 115.0 100.0

Oantity MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vairjeb tDomewsoPrices 102.9 106.0 109.0 1000 102.0 115.0 100.0

WMorderPric Equrt MU,$ PerMT 115.1 155.5 185.0 170.4 163.6 150.7 125.4

OrJlrIny MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

V.eI.art orderPlreEq-roalent 115.1 155.5 185.0 170.4 163.6 150.7 125.4

2. TRADABLE DIRECT IMWTSSeed QOatny Is) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Oom,sricPlice FPe MT 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.1 10.7 12.1 10.6

Dortc Cost 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.1 10.7 12.1 10.8

Bordn Prie Eq. Prie Per MT 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.1 107 12.1 10.9

bolder P, Eq. Cost 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.1 10.7 12.1 10.6

Fettiber a..ntey (cfi 1.0 1.0 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dostic Prce PFer MT 10.7 13.4 16.0 1456 13.1 13.3 12.9

Dore.tcCost 10.7 12.4 18.0 14.9 12.1 12.3 12.9

Border Prce Eq. Prce Per MT 10.9 13.6 12.7 12.2 10.9 11.1 10.9

Border Pie Eq. Cost 10.9 132. 12.7 12.2 10.9 11.1 10.B

flttwides Quantity P) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Do-mensFiP tMT 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1

D.-me.r Cost 0.4 04 0.9 1 0 1.0 1.0 1.1

Border Pit Eq. Prr- Pm MT 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8

Border P,ric Eq. Cost 0.3 0.3 0 7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8

Commenran ettt on QOanthyv t-l 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D.omesti Prie Per MT 8.2 9.2 9.2 9.0 8.9 25.9 27.0

Ltt DoreteoteW Cost 9.2 9.2 9.2 9.0 8.8 25.9 27.0

LA BorderB Pric Eq. Price Pm MT 6.1 6.7 6.9 6.9 6.5 18.9 19.9

Borden Pr Eq. Cot 6.1 6.7 8.8 6.6 6.6 18.9 19.9

Total Dreed Inpts (Dore.-tot Prints) 30.3 34.2 37.6 35.e 33.6 52.3 51.8

Toltd DeeDhrotsI (tenderc Ploe) 28.2 31 8 31.8 30.9 28.9 42.8 42.1

3. TRADABLE tEIRECT elMTSTtrpnort & Vehres Qtar8y (ita 1.0 1.0 1.0 10 1.0 1.0 1.0

DometPce Pm MT 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 16.0 18.0

Domerr,c Cost 2 1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 16.5 18.0

Border Prc Eq. Price Pm MT 2.3 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.3 19.6 17.0

Bordr Pri. Eq. Cost 2.3 3.1 3.8 3.4 3.3 15.6 17.0

D.swtt0tf.lnrTte Quonity 1-1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dorinoe Per MT 10.2 11.7 10.7 10.8 12.5 5.5 5.6

Do.-sMt.coss 10.2 11.7 10.7 10.5 12.5 5.5 5.6

B0rder PFice Eq. Prie Pm MT 5.3 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.6 3.8

Borden d Pl Eq. Cost 5.3 6.2 8.2 6.2 6.2 3.8 3.9

Deprseson t(o oao4y 1. 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

DomestinPrr Pm MT 11.3 11.7 11.6 11.9 12.9 2. 4.7

DO-rtedCost 11.3 11.7 11.6 I 1. 12.9 3.3 4.7

Border reo Eq. Prie Pm MT 10.9 11.3 11.2 11.4 12.3 2.7 3.7

BtordenPrFeEq. Cos 10.9 11.3 11.2 11.4 12.3 27 3.7

RFeanpbMirronnoe MaratOry (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dome.tic Plce Pm MT 13.8 14.3 14.3 14.0 16.2 2 -3 2 0

Do= tcmCn 136a 14.2 14.3 14.6 18.2 2.2 2.0

Borde Prc Eq. Prie Per MT 12.3 13.7 13.7 14.0 13.4 2.0 2.6

Borde Pr- Eq. Coe 13.3 13.7 13.7 14.0 15.4 3.0 2.6

Total IndeWt pots (Dor.ete Prices) 37.4 39.8 38.8 39.0 43.7 27.6 30.2

Total rdiect hlest (Borden Prie) 31.8 34.4 34.9 35 1 37.1 25.1 27.2

4. VALLE ADDEDDor0 Inputs Cedy At Domtic Prie.. 72.8 71.8 71.4 69.2 68.4 62.7 48.4

At Inm-trruoltPrite, 86.9 123.7 153.2 1395 134.8 107.9 83.3

D,ean & IndeihWptos A Domestic Prices 5.2 32.0 32.6 30.2 24.7 350 18.2

At Internatimn.IPr.e 55.1 89.3 118.3 104.5 97.7 82.7 56.1

9. EPR Trsd.ie 1n8uts 36.1% .641% -72 5% -71.1% .74.5% -57 7% -67.5%

a. Da to thi detd d nature or thir datlaend ithe k,,tatlos of oet, only cos. t earrmates par MT ere eroorded.

Sctowe.: SorsIance Pr ect. LA TAD. 1995

TABLE A-ScSTANDAINZED FORMAT


C.Uy Ul. ? : RV-*"

C_ : by U wt F_IM

ism 1661 ts im 1164 lows t stv tu_os tw lo wet im tur

Mm_V.hd 0u1O _(h.omn s eTwo so OA 0.0 0.0 0.0 *e 42.2 lese *r30 Am's 133.1 136.4 J.B

rPM PMT.. pus4 OA si *j OA 0* 0.0 302e I06A eeg us* eex lISA Ie .0

JLA TOW Mwkltva *I olp (2.UOBII S" 61)B0 0 0 B 0 a 0.436 23. 32 n2o27 V1.172 12.170 '1.0 ""R

01%

~%fh llooSrPat 00 0 0 B 6 0 (702) (S-ItS (.41540) (12.24W) PA"W PASS) (7.20W4

sm d 0 e e s e u e * 0 0 a 0 0 0

bIPFew" B B B B am (1 (2Sa) (.202) (1.1230 MORI0) Pon) (3.964

__M imd £ e 0 0 e SIT 20 a10 m 22 0 274 223

-Mm*BA iss 0 0 0 0 B 0 0 _ 02 120 3 44 44 432

TOWAskmh . a o o 0 PMW (0.04 peu242 (10.4W) (SIlt) 4'.702) 0.2IO

P,o_w i E l dI2s -40.20 -7@2%0 -M4s -O4.2 -29t9 -80.0%

TABLE A-78Standardized Format


Corx tyO: urr Ty": EomtdlCo od Y: Vwec Pohl id Conit Procr

1997W lge 1S" 1990 I9 1992 W 1993

1. UNAWJUST£D BORD0ER P19C£

Ed.' - noe Ntk Per Doar I I I I 1 1 1

DOrP IrIke 100.0 127.0 154.0 107.0 99.0 132.1 129.3

BderPreb htLcCalNC.-ncy 100.0 127.0 14.0 107.0 99.0 132.1 129.3

2. IOFEEIlADJUSIMENIS

TmflsaISubi*WAdmmaa.t _

Pon Chq 12%1 2 (4.7) (5.7) (4.01 13.7) 2.6 14.81

8ek Fe (1.5%) 1.5 (1.1) 12.3) 11.81 (1.5) 2.0 (1.91

TriadAmwaM (1.3%1 1.3 (1.71 (2.0) 11.41 (1.3) 1.7 11.7)

StorHag.ckvA.oe kryoorb Co"l (%) 1 (5-9) (8.51 15.51 (5.31 1.3 (6.01

Ordrrb Fc E rqtan fflth hlnrvootionl 105.8 112.8 137.5 94.5 87.2 139.8 114.9

B0oderP.EqWe&mt (wkt(.aut rr1entdon1 105.I 112.8 137.5 94.5 87.2 139.8 114.9

3. COSTS FROM DORDER TO PRtOCESSING (WI4OLESALE MARKETI

TwIffIS.uhseiAdatientsTmnsupotwion Trwport P,t-Uh (20 Km) 0.5 0.5

Oth r

VoderPric Equivaletit ar Pros,ag (with, looition) 108.3 112.8 137.5 94.5 87.2 140.2 114.9

Bardw Prce Equ)vdrnt a*R. Pxxcessf lwihout nluatl.anl 106.3 112.8 137.5 94.5 87.2 140.2 114.9

4. PFROCESSING COST IWHOLESALE MARKETI

l(IflSobid.l A tWrr,ts 29.1 14.6 (0.31 28.5 17.7 (9.0) 10.8

Prcrsobi ColstM akelk ig egit _ __ _ _ __ _ _

Oth r

Cc-wrlon 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

OrderPdle Esucun cbelor,Pocessirm(wkith Wtaanjl 135.4 127.4 137.2 123.0 104.9 131.3 125.7

Brdr Prie Ecatrsleat erk Pioceooglwithou blnervulionI 106.3 112.8 137.5 94.5 87.2 140.2 114.9

5. COSTS FROU COLLECTION POINT (FARI) TO PROCESSOR

Tratoponl Trnport UN -SI (31_0 r.) (7.2) 13.3) 13.21 (3.31 (3 41 17.41 13.3)

Oth. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Border P11cc Eqiwdemn at Corrftion PbIt (wItsvntlon) 128.2 124.1 134.0 119.8 101.6 123.5 122.4

Borde PEri EQuivale at CoPt(a (iolt w lhou ktrcef 99.0 109.5 134.3 91.3 83.9 132.8 111.6

S. DOMESTIC PRC BordwrWho_oai 134.4 130.3 140.3 12b.9 107.4 130.0 128.5

CAtlon PIt (Fm.) 128.2 124.1 134.0 119.8 101.6 123.8 122.4

7. NPR BOrderWh _boob 27.4% 12.8% .0.2% 30.1% 20.3% 4.4% 9.4%

CdlctlFP er(FanI4 2t.4% 13.3% 0.2% 31.2% 21.1% 4.8% 3.7%

*. TI. ywo 1997 44 1992 am r lW as an bh,otAb. A8d. Wai.n re osta*b.

SoOWcM SWvob Aqb4 LA TALt i



EWnrr.ordt: uU,o Y T Eepr0rt4

1987 9-- 988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993

1. OtlFPTUoW-orroie ftic. Nk Per MT 128.2 124.1 134.0 119.8 101.6 123.8 122.4

OQunbt4r MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vbe&rK1DorntiPr.e. 128.2 124.1 134.0 119.8 101.6 123.8 122.4

Sorde Prie Eqriet NUS Pot MT 99.0 109.5 134.3 91.3 83.9 132.8 111.6

Quantty MT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Vale at Bordr Pree Equr*ert 99.0 109.5 134.3 91.3 83.9 132.8 111.8

2 TADABLE DWIECT INUTSoed Quanty ltl 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Gorr.eticPrim ParMT 13.1 14.7 14.1 15.8 13.0 9.6 9.1

Oorr...Coat 13.1 14.7 14.1 15.8 13.0 9.6 9.1

BorderiP. Eq. Pree er MT 13.1 14.7 14.1 iS.8 13.0 9.6 9.1

Borde Prie Eq. Cor 13.1 14,7 14.1 16.8 13.0 9.6 9.1

Ftert. (luoty ( [ 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Gooetc Prreo Per MT 10.0 12.8 16.1 13.8 12.4 12.7 12.1

Dr-aetCcoot 10.0 12.6 15.1 13.8 12.4 12.7 12.1

Sorderie Eq. Prie Pr MT 10.2 13.5 12.7 12.4 11.2 11.2 11.2

Borde Proe Eq. Coot 10.2 13.5 12.7 12.4 11.2 11.2 11.2

Pe ecdes otnyUY )L 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dorreio Price Per MT 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0

D.orrele Co. 0.4 0.4 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0

horde. Prior Eq. Prie Per MT 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6

hord Prie Eq. Coot 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8

Corrnrcrikeiont lorky 1e 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dor Preie Per MT 4.9 5.2 6.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2

LA) DooreteD Coot 4.9 5.2 5.1 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.2

X0 Brd r Pre Eq. Price P.. MT 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7

hord Prie Eq. Coo 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.7

Totel Dee" hite IDDmrreg Pie .l 28.4 32.9 35.2 35.7 31.5 28.4 27.5

Totel Daee rpute Bo0rder Prcel 27.0 32.0 31.0 32.5 28.6 25.2 24.8

3. TADABLE tNCT INPUTSTlrgtor & Vehicle Quantty le) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

DorreiC Prie Per MT 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.4

Dome"'c Coot 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.0 2.4 2.4

order Pire Eq. Priee Per MT 2.0 2.2 2.7 1.8 1 7 2.6 2.2

Border Pri. Eq. Coat 2.0 2.2 2.7 1.8 1.7 2.6 2.2

Dieel Od tor ThVoe OaeotfY tl 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

DoeroicPrtce P.riT 9.6 11.1 10.1 9.9 11.9 12.0 11.8

Oo.rwoltiecCoo 9.6 11.1 10.1 9.9 11.9 12.0 11.8

o01der Pri. Eq. Prie Per MT 4.2 5.6 4.9 5.6 6.8 8.8 6.9

Border Price Eq. Coot 4.2 5.8 4.9 5.6 8 6.8 6.8

Depreecaon Ou.netty lot 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Doresoc Prie Pr MT 10.6 11.1 11.0 11.2 12.2 12.7 13.5

Dorrei Coo 10.6 11.1 11.0 11.2 12.2 12.7 13.5

Border Pho Eq.Price PerVT 10.3 10.7 10.6 10.8 11.6 12.1 12.8

Bo,derPre Eq.Com 10.3 10.7 10.6 10.6 11.6 12.1 12.8

Repar & Me.tenrnce Ouo-ty ''' 1.0 1,0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dornic Pfi. Per MT 13.0 13.5 13.5 13.8 15.4 15.7 16.9

DorrentieCon 13.0 13.5 13.5 13.8 15.4 15.7 16.S

Borde Pie Eq. Priee Per LMT 12.5 13.0 13.0 13.3 14.6 14.9 18,0

rder Price Eq. Coo 12.5 13.0 13.0 13.3 14.6 14.9 16.0

Totel kwd.ect Iopoto lDooe-tic PFrice 36.8 38.1 37.3 37.4 41.5 42.9 44.7

Totel Irdirect Inputt (Iardo Pfict 28.9 31.4 31.2 31.5 34.6 36.6 37.8

4. VALUE ADOEDDeedlnput. One AtDoreric Prei. 99.8 91.3 98.8 84.0 70.0 95.4 94.9

At Internatioel Pri.. 72.0 77.5 103.2 58.7 55.3 107.6 88.8

De-d & lodier Inputs At Dorrret Pree- 64.0 53.2 61.4 46.7 28.5 52.6 50.2

At lntotonarl PO.e. 43.0 46.1 72.0 27.2 20.7 71.2 49.0

6. EPR TADABLE Inputs 48.7% 15.4% -14.7% 71.5% 38.2% .26.1% 2.5%

e. Due to rho deeod neture ol the doen end the intetin onte poc- *r coo esth pr MT are pro-id.

Sor,.: Sirva,trrce PAqict LA TAD, 1995

TABLE A-7cSTANDARIZED FORMAT

PRODUCER SUBSIDY EUIVALENT

C _ Ih .y .T: Ep, W3m1 Len4t Fee.

lom lut teu2 ttuin 134 1366 566 1961 1366 t66 1360 11 1396 te

ex *I T 0.0 0*e 0.0 *e,oe 0A .e .7 7J 413 I42.4 41.7 175 146.03r.J3Pi.Tom (BUS) 0.0 0.0 0.0e 0.0 0 .0 0.0 e. 1202 124.1 124.0 11. "OA 123A 122.4

t1 T _I Mwkm Vanh ofO.20d (Ths..b $US) 00 0 0 0 0 0 e31e.700 0 134 S1.417 4.2 42216 2220 41.721

A_obb'o (rhouasm $JUS):m~ hdA4o s 4 6p. 0 a 0 0 0 0 a .1 4.402 (3033 32.423 7.21 (3.002 3.00

b_W Pein 0 (.4 (3,122) *3"02 * .5*1 (1121 32)3, 13314 1024

Crmb . a e * 0 * 0 * 13.432 2,22e Im am

_aeb r Eo23_°3 0 e 0 0 0 0 e 0 137 242 30 "4 0

Tdo Ab' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0e .245 4.00 (007) 34.I1 1.41111 (3.303 2.004

P0e __- Sub* Efud.s 2111 Isis -IJS RIJS I3S2 -4.7% 71$



Country: Uunguay Tope; Exporttble

Commodity Sunflowr Point of Comrettion: Processo

1987 1988 1989 1990 1891 1992 1993

1. UNADJUSTED BOWlER PRICE

Exchange Rate NUr8 Per Dolor 1 1 I 1 1 1 1

Border PNice 180.0 211.5 220.0 213.9 196.2 195.2 237.5

Border PrIrk. In [neal CrIr-oncy 180.0 211.5 220.0 213.9 196.2 195.2 237.5


Tarlffs/Subsidies/Adjust,nents

Port Charges I5.1) (5.13 (5.13 (5.1) (5.13 (5.33 (5.13

Bank Fees (1.5%) 32.7) 33.2) (3.3) (3.21 (2.91 (2.93 (3.83

Trade Agents (1.3%) (2.3) (2.7) 32.9) (2.8) 32.6) (2.5) (3.13

Storage/Hindhigtoss (5.3) (5.7) 35.83 (5.7) (5.5) 35.5) (6.03

Border Price Equrivlent (with intervention) 164.5 194.8 203.0 197.1 180.1 179.2 219.8

EBorderPriceEquivalenlwlthoutIntervention) 164.5 194.8 203.0 197.1 180.1 179.2 219.8

3. COSTS FROM BORDER TO PROCESSING (WHOLESALE MARKET)

TarifsiSrubsidies/AdjustmentsTransportation

33.2) 33.2) 33.2) 33.3) 33.4) 33.3) (3.3)

Other

O Border Price Equivalent after Processing (with Intervention) 161.3 191.5 199.8. 193.8 176.7 175.8 216.4

Rrder Pric FquivIlent aft.erProcessing (withoutlrntrvenrin-) n161.3 191.5 199.8 193.8 176.7 175.8 216.4


Tarifls/Subsidies/AdjustmentsProcessing CostsMarketing Margins

31.8) (2.1) 32.2) 32.1) (2.0) 32.0) (2.4)

Other

Conversion Ti 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

ordere Price Equivalent before Processing (with Intevention) 159.5 189.4 197.8 191.7 174.7 173.9 214.1

Eordes PrceEqulralent belefeProcessing (withourIntervention) 159.5 189.4 197.6 191.7 174.7 173.9 214.1

5. COSTS FROM COLLECTION POINT (FARM) TO PROCESSOR

Taritfo/Sutrskb.Is/Adhrstnrent. (5.33 3.9 5.9 4.5 36.7) (18.2) (24.9)

I ransprpoalnnOtherh

Border Price Equivalent a Colection Point l_ith intervention) 154.2 193.3 203.5 196.1 168.0 157.7 189.2

Border Price Equivalnt at Colection Point (without ntervention) 159.5 189.4 197.6 191.7 174.7 173.9 214.1

8. DOMESTIC PRICE BorderWholesale

154.2 193.3 203.5 196.1 168.0 157.7 189.2

CoLection Point Earfm) 154.2 193.3 203.5 196.1 168.0 157.7 189.2

7. NPR BorderWholesale

0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Collection Point (Earn) 3.3% 2.0% 3.0% 2.3% 3.9% 9.3% -11.6%

a. Converted to the internelinal tat content standard of 44%.


TABLE A-SbStandardized Format


Cototby UuVsce Ty": Evroble

Coanedlty: Sftowr L,,l: Fw,,,

1. OUTPT 81957 1S" 1939 1900 I", 1102 1133

Du.sc rdcc I3.r Po! MT 164.2 1S3.3 203.5 16.1 1IU.0 157.7 189.2

rwlty UT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Verm at Dometic Prss 164.2 193.3 203.6 15.11 1St.0 167.7 13l.2

~ FPries Eqwior ll4J r P MT 165.S 1NA 197.6 191.7 174.7 173.9 214.1

tMn1 mT 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

VO& at tbrd mE Prr 1b9.5 189.4 197.3 191.7 174.7 173.S 214.1

2. TRADAE OfUECT SWUTSS 9d .*r la) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Due rFi. PM MT 44.3 44.3 35.5 22.2 53.7 43.2 53.3

Cost 44.3 44.3 35.6 32.2 53.7 43.2 53.3

rdm PrItc E Price rw MT 338. 3t6 309 28.0 46.7 37.6 U2.1

clw Pldce E5 Cost 38.5 33.5 30.9 26.0 46.7 37. 612.1

Fesulids W gal 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Osewlec Pdfue MrMT 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.7 1.6 2.0 2.4

DmMSdc Cost 0.7 0.7 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.0 2.4

Bsrd rnc Ea. FVCt PWur 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5

rmd Fries Eq. Con 0.6 0.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5

D_4. 09 Clewatty 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dos Ptde Pric Pm MT 18.4 20.4 18.5 16.9 20.9 24.5 27.4

Dornic Cost 13.4 20.4 18.5 16.9 20.9 24.5 27.4

FrtEa.rc PPmMT 31 10.4 9.0 9.6 11.9 14.0 15.6

bder Fe Ea. Cost 8.1 10.4 3.0 0.6 11.9 14.0 15.6

ConMme dw cOltity (a) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

D c Ie Price Po MT 2.6 3.0 3.1 2.J 2.8 3.0 4.9

Dante C ot 2.5 3.0 3.1 2.3 2.3 3.0 4.5

_dm Fnee Er, Pdce Pm MT 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.4 3.5

- brim~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~od FrIes 5. Cost 2.0 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.4 3.3

Total Direct hWs (DonMdc PrIces 65.3 6U.4 59.7 53.5 76.9 72.6 54.4

Total Direct Pmprw (lds Prit I 49.1 51.J 43.5 41.1 62.0 56.5 73.3

3. TRADABLE NDIRECT 3WUTSTrwoml Chastit `1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dt.mutc Prci Pm MT 3.1 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.1 3.9

DOmestic Cost 3.1 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.1 3.9

6rd PFcr Eq. PFre Pcr MT 3.1 3.a 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.9

Bwdr PFIes E5. Cost 3.1 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.9

Rwepri sd si,mot,ec Dm.Uy (ml 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Da.stic Pdc Per MT 24.3 25.0 24.7 23.5 27.1 32.1 39.0

Ocreetic cost 24.1 25.0 24.7 23.5 27.1 32.1 39.0

brid PFie Eq. PFes Pm M T 23.9 24.0 23.3 22.6 25.7 30.5 37.0

Borderl PFrc E4. Cost 23.9 24.0 23.5 22.6 25.7 30.5 37.0

VeNcl. thrnttla) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Dorrtic Frice Per MT 9.3 11.2 11.1 10.9 11.3 10.6 12.1

Ow.1"Htc Cot II.3 11.2 11.1 10.9 11.3 10.5 12.1

bordr PFice Ea. PrIme Por UT 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.1 8.2 9.4

Border PFics Ea. Cost 7.6 7.8 7.5 7.9 8.1 8.2 9.4

Deprecledw antlnty b 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Darwtnc Price Per MT 20.4 20.3 20.5 19.5 22.0 26.0 31.3

Domstc Cost 20.4 20.8 20.5 19.5 22.0 26.0 31.3

Bwrder Price E5. Prim Per UT 20.0 20.0 13.7 15.: 20.9 24.9 30.0

Srd5r Prics E. Cost 20.0 20.0 19.7 19.6 20.9 24.9 30.0

Tot IrMrelt nwor IDorcs Pncesl 57.6 90.6 60.2 57.9 63J. 72.0 36.3

Toual Minect h Wts Ioridr PnrIet 54.6 56.7 55.2 53.1 59.2 57.1 61.3

4. VALUE ADOMDirclt V, Orit At Dametic PrIs 8.3 124.9 144.3 142.6 89.1 84.9 S4.8

At lhr dhonel Price 110.4 137.6 154.1 150.5 112.8 118.3 140.6

Olrec No b.mt At Dc&n&c Prices30.6 64.1 *4.6 84.7 25.4 12.9 6.5

At SOselcal Price 55.5 62.0 06.3 37.5 54.6 51.2 59.6

5. ErR Tradbbe *wts .45.1% -21.68% -14.5% 13.1% -53.5% .74.8% -. 5.7%

a. ODu to the dot_d rrntw of de db mid the Smiteoc of sPi, ory cost OMes per MT we provided.

Sourm Slovefe RCt, LA TAD, 1995

TABLE A-fc.TANDARIZED FORMAT

PRODUCER UBIBDY EQUIVALENT

C--mm ,.. T3vs bpine

*ern tint teem tern iee1 tee 1UM slwe a _ 1 lesti1110 1 W

MmwwVab at Ompeowd ETh.m.ads4 dT.o 0.8 @8 0.8 es 0.8 Si0 5 4580 2Rel BOA 34.? 508 01 45

P0te P0 7.. $MM U.S 080 0.0 680 408 68 6A OUR MA8 38 I.1 314.6 fo7.7 In

TOW11104 VOM d OV (6theinmd aI 0 a S 0 C S 7ABS 0.314 OA"e 5.31 5.30? 3.717 IRAN

Nmbd Ftlsupped s - 0 a0 e e inO 3 mg 35 55) l (OM"l

kh34343o lewd0 0 0 a p a e S 6 S

WWA PM"" a a ~ ~~~~~~~~ 5 0 0 PM5 PM) Ps" (435 4(IllS .1.4" (OA"3

CF*MAsdosomC S 0 B a a S all 5? INS UT B age 13

P00se dsA S S B 0 a 0 34 50 4 Ue am 23? a"0

To"DmbommiOns 0 0 0 (74 a (3 PM(1.235 (1.134 P."05

P10d33 81*5* EqvhdB0 - soft -LS% -380 .1 - U8% - I?.?% -458%

Distributors of World Bank PublicationsARGENTINA DENMARK JAPAN SINGAPORZ, TAIWANCerlofech SRL S tdtr Estam BookService Gwer AsiaPdlc Pm L.GaleriaGuanme Ra IInoerMAIM 11 Hwmgo3SChon,Bunkyo-ku 113 Goldin WIwelBuitidgFlOnid 165. 4thFloOfc. 453/465 DLl970FrdnkebrigC Tokyo 41, KallangPuddlbg #0031333Bueno&Airs S513po 134

EGYPT, ARA EPUBUC OF XENYAOfticnedalLabralrternacontl AlAhram A BookSwklin (LA.) LkL SLOVAKRElUUUCAlbert40 Al GaleStreet QuarmnHousef, maunoSt SlovartG.Tf.Ltd.1082BuUnon Airs Cafro P.O.Bo45245 Krupu'k4

Naiobi P.O. Bo 152AUSIRALIA, PAPUANEW GUINEA, The MiddleEt Obsrver 852 99Braslava SFIJI, SOLOMON ISEANDS, 41, Sherif Stret KOREA, RUBUC OFVANUATU, AND CAiro Da4onTrdingCo LLL SOUTHAFRICA,BOTSWANAWESrERN SAMOA P.O. Box 34 Oxford University PrDA. Infornstion Serve FINLAND Yeoeida SouhrnAfrim648%hitRoad Akateewn)(iriakauppa Seoul P.O. Bc 1141Mitchm3132 P.O. Ba 23 CeTown8000Victna FIN-DO371 Helsinid ALAYSIA

UnlveltyofMsqCoopave SPAINAUSIRIA FRANCE BooWh rp,Untid Mundl-PreruaLlbro,sSA.GwrldandCo. WorldBankiPubliatone P.O.Boa 1127,JaalanPAniB u, Caedlo37Graben3l 66, avenue d'ldn 59700 KUa =ML LW 28CO MdridA-1011 Wien 75116Paris

MCECO LlbreralntndualAEDCSBNGLADESEI GERMANY ID}TEC Cornell de Cent, 391MkrolindustriaeDevelopnint UNO-Verlag ApardoPosa 224-60 0800BaruSong

Ait Society (MDAS) FoppebdorferAlie55 l4060Tlalpan, MeciuoD.F.Houe 5, Road 16 53115Bonn SRI LANKA &TIE MALDWVESDhbaniondiR/Aree NErIIERlANDS LakeHoueBookahopDhakl1209 GRECE DeLunbdoonVInOr-Pubkiatils P.O. B 244

Papasotinou SA. P.O. Bo 202 100, Sir Chtarnpalam A.BELGiUM 35,StournraStr. 7480 AE Haaksbgen GardinerMawathaJeanDeLannoy 10682 Athenrs Colnibo 2Av. du Roi 202 NEW ZEALAND1060 Bru_eeb HONG KONG, MACAO EBSCONZLtd. SWEDEN

Asia 2000 Lt. Privat MailBag99914 FritP Cumtonw SrviBRAflL 4648WyndhmnStreet New Market RerwLngptanl2PublioommTenicmInternionai W unningCentre Auckland S-10647Stocklholm

LUs. 7thFlorRum Peixoto Gonid, 209 CentrallHongKong NIGERIA Wernergren-WllianuAB01409 Sao Paulo, SP University Pre. Linited P.O. BoX 1305

HiUNGARY Three CrownsBuldingjericho 5-1712SolnaCANADA Foundatinm forMarketEnorny PrivateMailBag 595La Diffuseur DonbovariUt17-19 Tldn SWITZERLANDISIA Boul. de Mortage H-1117Budapeat LibralrinPayotBoucherville, Qu6bec NORWAY Case poatala 3212J4B 5E6 INDIA NarveenInforniationCenter CH1002L L,snn

Alied Pubisher Private Ltd. BookDepartrintRenoufPublishingCo. 751bMountRoad P.O. Boa 6125Etertad VanDiernnnEditionsTachluqe1294AlgnoaRoad Madras- 600002 N-0602Oslo6 P.O.BrK465Ottawa,OntarioKiB3W8 C01211 Geneva 19

INDONESLA PAKLWANCHINA Pt Indir Lirnited MirzBookAgency TANZANIAChinFnaia1&Econonic JelanBorobudur 20 65, Shahrh-el Azm Oford University Pres.

Publisung House P.O. BOXe18i P.O. Box No. 729 M ldkbastreet8M,DaFoSiDongJie J.kate10320 LAhore54000 P.O.BS 5299Beijing DersSeleAm

ULAN Oxford University PieCOLOMBIA KowkabPublla SBangaporeTown TEHAIEANDInfoenLtdaL P.O. Bs 19575-511 ShamsaFaimel Central Books Otabuticn Co.LtU.ApwrtdoAno34270 Tehrin P.O.Bo13033 306SilomRoedBogotaDE Kenwch-75350 Bangkok

NILADCOSrARICA,BF,L7M GUATE GovernwnentSupplsAgency PE°U TRINIDAD &TOBAGO, JAMAICA-MAIX HONDURAS, 4-SHearcourtRoad EditorielDeaoiloSA Systemul aSt ud UnitNICARAGUA,PANAMA Dublin 2 Apartedo3824 69 Wati StreetChiepaBookstore Lirnl Curpe75 Meten al Norte del ioted Blmorl ISRAEL Triniiad WestIndimm

en ile 7 Yoznot Literature Ltd. PHIIInPIESSenjow P.O. BoK 56055 IntarnationalBookCenter UGANDA

Tel Aviv 61560 Suite 720, Citynd 10 GCstroLtd.COTEDDIVOIRE CondornmuniTower 2 1ot Floor, Roon 4, GeogiedilCherberaCentre d'Edition at de Diffuson RO.Y.Intinaional Ayala Avenue. H.V. dela P.O. Boa 9997

Afkiamn(CeDA) P.O. BoaK 3056 CoetaExitenion Plot(69)KanpelaRoad04B.P.541 Te Aviv61130 MAkati,MetroManbla KmpalAbidjn 04 Platmu

PulafnisAz itifriAMiddk EBa POLAND UNFiTED NGDOMCYPRUS Indec Inforration Servie nlt PubiigS MicroinfoLid.Centr ofAppid Reserch P.O.B. 19502 Jeruaemirn Ui. Pkna 31/37 P.O. Bax 3Cypr College O0-S77Wararawa Alo EHamhirGUM 2PG6, Diogens Stretwi Engonit ITALY EnlandP.O. Boax 2006 Lic Cornumsin_riaSarmoni SPA PORTUGALNicosia Via Dn Di Cel, 1/1 LivrartaPortugpi ZAMBIA

CaIhla Postel 552 RuafDoCarno 70-74 Unlvrty BolaopCZECHR BUC 50i25Firenm 1200Li bon GretEetRoedCsnyNatiol InforrrmtionCenter P.Os Bs 32379P.O. Box 668 JAMAICA SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR LusslACS-113 57 Pregue1 lan Randl Publihr Ltd. Jarir BookStorm

206 Old Hope Road P.O. Boa 3196 ZMBABWECingston6 RiyadhIlI471 LongnsnZlnrbwe(Pte.) LUd.

TourbeRoaeLArdbennlsP,QBox SF125

I

RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued)

No. 245 Klein, External Debt Management: An Introduction

No. 246 Plusquellec, Burt, and Wolter, Modern Water Control in Irrigation: Concepts, Issues, and Applications

No. 247 Ameur, Agricultural Extension: A Step beyond the Next Step

No. 248 Malhotra, Koenig, and Sinsukprasert, A Survey of Asia's Energy Prices

No. 249 Le Moigne, Easter, Ochs, and Giltner, Water Policy and Water Markets: Selected Papers and Proceedings from theWorld Bank's Annual Irrigation and Drainage Seminar, Annapolis, Maryland, December 8-10,1992

No. 250 Rangeley, Thiam, Andersen, and Lyle, International River Basin Organizations in Sub-Saharan Africa

No. 251 Sharma, Rietbergen, Heimo, and Patel, A Strategyfor the Forest Sector in Sub-Saharan Africa

No. 252 The World Bank/FAO/UNIDO/industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and DemandBalancesfor Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1992/93-1998/99

No. 253 Jensen and Malter, Protected Agriculture: A Global Review

No. 254 Frischtak, Governance Capacity and Economic Reforn in Developing Countries

No. 255 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Africa Region, July 1987 to April 1994

No. 256 Campbell, Design and Operation of Smallholder Irrigation in South Asia

No. 257 Malhotra, Sinsukprasert, and Eglington, The Performance of Asia's Energy Sector

No. 258 De Geyndt, Managing the Quality of Health Care in Developing Countries

No. 259 Chaudry, Reid, and Malik, editors, Civil Service Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean: Proceedings of a Conference

No. 260 Humphrey, Payment Systems: Principles, Practice, and Improvements

No. 261 Lynch, Provisionfor Chtildren with Special Educational Needs in the Asia Region

No. 262 Lee and Bobadilla, Health Statistics for the Americas

No. 263 Le Moigne, Giltner, Subramanian, and Xie, editors, A Guide to the Formulation of Water Resources Strategy

No. 264 Miller and Jones, Organic and Compost-Based Growing Mediafor Tree Seedling Nurseries

No. 265 Viswaneth, Building Partnershipsfor Poverty ReductionThe Participatory Project Planning Approach of the Women'sEnterprise Management Training Outreach Program (WEMTOP)

No. 266 Hill and Bender, Developing the Regulatory Environmentfor Competitive Agricultural Markets

No. 267 Valdes and Schaeffer, Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade: A Handbookfor the Dominican Republic

No. 268 Valdes and Schaeffer, Surveillance of Agricultural Prices and Trade: A Handbookfor Colombia

No. 269 Scheierling, Overcoming Agricultural Pollution of Water: The Challenge of Integrating Agricultural andEnvironmental Policies in the European Union

No. 270 Banerjee, Rehabilitation of Degraded Forests in Asia

No. 271 Ahmed, Technologicai Development and Pollution Abatement: A Study of How Enterprises Are Finding Alternatives toChlorofluorocarbons

No. 273 Grimshaw and Helfer, editors, Vetiver Grassfor Soil and Water Conservation, Land Rehabilitation, and EmbankmentStabilization: A Collection of Papers and Newsletters Compiled by the Vetiver network

No. 274 Govindaraj, Murray, and Chellaraj, Health Expenditures in Latin America

No. 275 Heggie, Management and Financing of Roads: An Agendafor Reform

No. 276 Johnson, Quality Review Schemesfor Auditors: Their Potentialfor Sub-Saharan Africa

No. 277 Convery, Applying Environmental Economics in Africa

No. 278 Wijetilleke and Karunaratne, Air Quality Management: Considerations for Developing Countries

No. 279 Anderson and Ahmed, The Casefor Solar Energy Investments

No. 280 Rowat, Malik, and Dakolias, Judicial Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean

No. 281 Shen and Contreras-Hermosilla, Environmental and Economic Issues in Forestry: Selected Case Studiesin India

No. 282 Kim and Benton, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Onchocerciasis Control Program (OCP)

No. 283 Jacobsen, Scobie and Duncan, Statutory Intervention in Agricultural Marketing

THE WORLD BANK

A partner in strengthening economiesand expanding marketsto improve the quality of lifefor people everywhere,especially the poorest

Headquarters European Office Tokyo Office1818 H Street, N,W. 66, avenue d'Ilna Kokusai BuildingWashington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. 75116 Paris, France 1-1, Marunouchi 3-chome

Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, JapanTelephone: (202) 477-1234 Telephone: (1) 40.69.30.00Facsimile: (202) 477-6391 Facsimile: (1) 40.69.30.66 Telephone: (3) 3214-5001Telex: Mc164145 WORLDBANY Telex: 640651 Facsimile: (3) 3214-3657

McI 248423 WORLDBANK Telex: 26838Cable Address: INTBAFRAD

WASHINGTONOC

A

0

'.4ri

P

'.4

a

A

00

0

'.4

fi

O

911701213306813ISBN 0-8213-3306-2

2

Documents

wnTP 224 Public Disclosure Authorized AIA u * S